Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion

Lorenzo Colitti <> Tue, 03 November 2015 00:28 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 670A51ABC75 for <>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:28:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vnx3fliHEzug for <>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:28:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4002:c07::231]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id E83BC1A9302 for <>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:28:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by ykek133 with SMTP id k133so957388yke.2 for <>; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:28:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=izhHh86ZnxqZJPVOvhYaUP69KKiE3B9knnI2CXa0gdY=; b=FbgheZbrzoOgSnMDsb5je8504HQ+n/FmwmD0yr3ju8bG9H/W10tWjnp1XHn80I1h5L DP3UTx5uP8TRp39w1SEpbD97NdlJwqqvJWH9KWH+F/yLBYwIfB+COn+13ESQ0/D21cH8 7I08I6jxrI2WhdSZ33wsvVk4tcde7FhtoQJMZACBsqm2RUOgZkq9ve1htXsg2M+3sAOD 5wpi1Ro0AygoYG6c5WSPu4udPw3Q8riYVPeJeHAhyFOUZG3Ego/2Nn8Vx4R4U0HReuOt pHP2FPF2/s0YfeN0NqEuLH98bVuhbFvjiGqrTDU1/jEynMaP4qOnVNfTVjPuYEQuB0lc n9VQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=izhHh86ZnxqZJPVOvhYaUP69KKiE3B9knnI2CXa0gdY=; b=eGf5pYLXRY39w+MMuzcr9e8CBQkKeopKlUUMQxmsSqXFZ2btF7Gv6MXcRAa864lSvl 8d56/2aeP3bBhQ5brSHBUexmD8PuJMO0mCVQlXwXC+7YirLWpVwlcawzmDOlQzr0q54Z P56PO95zofYHVEgm3HQDWtiNpxH0KE7fMdv3ODjn09e0wg7uNMWFsLCEVbhhZ8vuXSng B8T99ms5tsfXVMv6HBBBPn069HqjvhTX3JIZ06kho5tw384X0rcrGMvEMt8PqCmcX1GR M1gxYW6KRx2/+Eb0+aP73RSL0uBwx8Zyjdq3WFxpw6BsaGn/eBLSYP17peeeNBcffBAK /HDQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnBLOmcgGGr1h/LBf6XzRan2so1vhPHJ1RN92JZgILev/8k7pfA/9LwbvcW9Hl0Fx8SixOu
X-Received: by with SMTP id h84mr20966160ywb.156.1446510509089; Mon, 02 Nov 2015 16:28:29 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 16:28:09 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 09:28:09 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a114d8dae0f4cb8052397f99d
Archived-At: <>
Cc: " WG" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 00:28:31 -0000

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <> wrote:

> The right recommendation is the following:
> "in a 3GPP network which uses exclusively SLAAC for IPv6 address
>  configuration on the UE the network must not limit its ability to set
>  multiple distinct IPv6 prefixes in a RA to the UE.  By default there
>  should be two."

On 3GPP there is only one Prefix Information Option in the RA - . We can't change that
because the behaviour is defined by 3GPP, not IETF. We might be able to ask
3GPP to change it, but I don't think this document is the place to do that.
3GPP networks already fulfill the spirit of this draft by providing an
entire /64 to each device.

This is not a good example either.  One wouldn't give an INFORMATIONAL
> document as a recommendation to follow.

It's not a recommendation to follow, it's just an example of how having
multiple addresses can allow future applications.

   An example of how the availability of multiple addresses per host has
>    already stimulated successful new applications:
> [...]
>    o  tethering.  In tethering a UE such as a smartphone connects
>       several IP devices on its LAN through the access network and to
>       the Internet.  This is realized with DHCPv6-PD [AERO] or some
>       other techniques like "/64 sharing" [RFC7278] or other forms of
>       bridging.

I'm not sure that tethering is a good example for this section. It's
existed for a long time, so it's not really a new application, and we
already mention it in an earlier section in the draft.