Re: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentation

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Wed, 18 September 2019 01:24 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0070112011E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:24:13 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.747
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.747 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id zDh19WnRDgJt for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:24:11 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-io1-xd32.google.com (mail-io1-xd32.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d32]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D631812007A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-io1-xd32.google.com with SMTP id a1so12265763ioc.6 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=s+kr4CjHRfZD+2pIN/kdVY2R61z6ZbAPtCPXiU0vYEY=; b=JGIjEG4y6OVBwGE5nhIoBqwjr2OvsqKxOkf+Msq2yoW0IlYjD09wTlNgjlDpL6w0SY 5wkXfLSiu7fW6guT58d9QUlsITCSe95kPv3RsWiLmamXW+IOS658sPKpV41/qZTcgPZL o2yv+Jdc+tstCylJ6EsuP7MJ/9YRMHBuxfNigB22+bAxG6H0hymi7xc75YcZtZsvrN// yz4f2GwFJ5DZTo9GOboXKVAs8nJM9zqYuP1zCCH0Dr3dKmRc3a4bbpoSb/JH9HhepRgD EObP8nSydH2z0R1SDf+ek0fzT/Ty5jvLOuHcMEhuwTfciOXN0e7bH6+IxpWgWJoSlGBb IHjw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=s+kr4CjHRfZD+2pIN/kdVY2R61z6ZbAPtCPXiU0vYEY=; b=MB/6AqoVYxD0nlw7IXW/spuYL5PGY3fUN5lipHOhZWB48jeUJmgapK2vU9t1hCqfaC AhBVQm/5G6j+txN0ghNAe3KCjE7VPPEOOFjdYiXXFYSXz/8gdBR7xTAv2ZxaBmlUGQ5e q18tBCCenI/Q7dnC1DNjltuOZadX/cXcrVtNANn8WW3xwq+6Rfhc7FDAs7UQv8huu+LH NEtqCJEwgNnNk/EGHhGUwyM+glmpZWhFrUF24Q/QANBDEwls+MBiFqUefWvEaAFDoe4I OXIZCJG5uglQ7F8z8Lk5+1oU46o8d8eTTacSgkXN0L8mY9RN7wxdEhWTKdAlD+kA8Dl9 xmJA==
X-Gm-Message-State: APjAAAWZxRzgNPRvdHzlSIhg30g/1b38dumUxnu2zuzDPexOZMZKMyWM KnQvyhmndc5LxnI9TEmO4IbbJy4mqwczdVLQ/NU=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx8ng8LTbfu7UOx5s5ToBiQo/mgHoj8SrPy5qHXK81ZVEVcI6SLacUkwjh7eqR86D35AMhV4Opftu/lZCEMKlY=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6602:2241:: with SMTP id o1mr815912ioo.129.1568769850115; Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:24:10 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CAO42Z2yJWgswT6+RYqunqYX70tg4BY3s3rsBGscvNfi-+uFqcQ@mail.gmail.com> <1a8cd6c2-7c5a-3260-7027-fd84a89945bd@gmail.com> <20190917115032.GM55186@Space.Net> <30fe8da2-bd72-1be4-fbb6-5ebdeb451771@gmail.com> <20190917125542.GQ55186@Space.Net> <6ba597e9-b622-6c22-7e3b-40d11f4270a4@gmail.com> <20190917133033.GR55186@Space.Net> <1f5b2b0e-ca2b-7883-5967-2b32eb94ae10@gmail.com> <CAO42Z2w2eH3jk9k_Yb2FfuC15gfKZo8op8Mgk9OunT=3ayH0sA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAO42Z2w2eH3jk9k_Yb2FfuC15gfKZo8op8Mgk9OunT=3ayH0sA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Sep 2019 18:23:59 -0700
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGQS_1EtwQXwj5BkKBS6Zs2hEabpSSDbXGig7+m2SqL7KA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com>
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, v6ops list <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a68af50592c9b1a3"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/W_eE9I5EF1txRdIDjg-HntwNPZA>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] "Getting IPv6 Private Addressing Right" AusNOG presentation
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2019 01:24:13 -0000

I

On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 5:38 PM Mark Smith <markzzzsmith@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Tue, 17 Sep 2019, 23:36 Alexandre Petrescu, <
> alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Le 17/09/2019 à 15:30, Gert Doering a écrit :
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > On Tue, Sep 17, 2019 at 03:22:13PM +0200, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> >> One cant share such a /64 to a downstream WiFi and a downstream
>> >> 802.11-OCB because they are not precisely the same LLC, and they cant
>> be
>> >> bridged.  (same problem with downstream Ethernet and Bluetooth,
>> Ethernet
>> >> and USB, and many others).
>> >
>> > Sure you can... ND proxy, etc.
>>
>> ND proxy, or lack of it on IoT Router, has other inconvenients and
>> advantages that we could discuss.
>>
>> > I didn't say "bridge" on purpose
>>
>> I see, I agree that word was missing from what you said, so I should
>> have assumed you thought rather ND proxy or other non L2 bridging.
>>
>> Remark neither 64share nor ND proxy are Standards.
>>
>
> I contributed to 64share because I thought it was good to have some of
> these options written down.
>
> The trouble with it is that it's trying to be half way between full
> routing between interfaces and bridging between interfaces. That doesn't
> really fit with our models and protocols, which is why it has issues.
>

The models may be wrong.  Or, as some smart person said, “all models are
wrong, some are models are useful”

>
> It's no more than a workaround.
>

Eh. It may be time to update that perspective as 64share is simply how
tethering is done on millions of Android and Apple devices.  I think it is
now fair to say, for mobile, DHCPv6 a solution to a problem users /
providers /  the market does not have ha e

>
> DHCPv6-PD is the proper solution, however the real issue is caused by how
> 3GPP do entire device version number snapshots.
>
> From the RFC Intro:
>
> "3GPP mobile cellular networks such as Global System for Mobile
>    Communications (GSM), Universal Mobile Telecommunications System
>    (UMTS), and Long Term Evolution (LTE) have architectural support for
>    IPv6 [RFC6459], but only 3GPP Release-10 and onwards of the 3GPP
>    specification [TS.23401] supports DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation [RFC3633]
>    for delegating IPv6 prefixes to a single LAN link."
>
>
> On a normal computer, if you want DHCPv6-PD support, you just install it
> and try to use it. It generally works or it doesn't.
>

> On a 3GPP "Smartphone", which is actually just a computer too with a
> specific type of link-layer interface, you can't install new software to
> give it a new network capability, because then it doesn't comply with the
> 3GPP spec. it is supposed to.
>
> The versioning model of 3GPP is whole of device, where as the IETF model
> is per protocol. That means having to come up with non-IETF spec compliant
> work arounds like 64share when there is a conflict in these models.
>
> It would be better if 3GPP started to think of smartphones as portable
> personal computers that happen to be able to make phone calls, and allowed
> them to follow the more discrete and incremental protocol version model.
>
> As that industry has more than a century of think of devices in end-users
> hands as voice devices first, and anything else as an add on (like running
> non-voice apps), I'm not sure we'll ever see them change from this
> versioning model.
>

Apple and the other OEMs do what they want and do not follow 3gpp blindly.
64share and 464xlat never appeared in a 3gpp doc, yet both are deployed in
many 3gpp networks n


> Regards,
> Mark.
>
>
>> Alex
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>