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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 03/11/2015 09:28, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <[e-mail] <mailto:[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.

I wanted to avoid, but again it loops to me not understanding the spirit 
of the draft.  Maybe it's only me.

Is there any other network that does _not_ provide a /64 to the Host?


>     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.

Sure, tethering was there already, and in the text as well.  All I 
changed is the way the draft mentions tethering, by putting first DHCPv6-PD.

If need is, I can give more text with example of more standard protocols 
based on Mobile IP that achieve the same tethering.

Alex