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

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Alexandre Petrescu <
[e-mail]> 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 -
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6459#section-5.2 . 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.