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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Tue, 03 November 2015 03:05 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BC7EB1ACF04 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:05:11 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
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 R1UnnSzVT4GC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 5E76E1ACEEE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 2 Nov 2015 19:05:09 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id tA3357kV000945; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:05:07 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id BEA6D201CF6; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:11:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B340D200FD3; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:11:04 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([132.166.84.8]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id tA33518C027973; Tue, 3 Nov 2015 04:05:05 +0100
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
References: <8D175A1F-B1AE-44B4-838E-1C853B6C937D@cisco.com> <5637401A.1050807@gmail.com> <CAKD1Yr1PpQF4dvwx5iFhO=JqKqgxB8z0CxUmnST1DCt+NfiZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5638245C.7080401@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Nov 2015 12:05:00 +0900
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.3.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr1PpQF4dvwx5iFhO=JqKqgxB8z0CxUmnST1DCt+NfiZOQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/ZJo3yf1Scz85HuV_R9lJbojDwPY>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-host-addr-availability discussion
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Tue, 03 Nov 2015 03:05:11 -0000


Le 03/11/2015 09:28, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Mon, Nov 2, 2015 at 7:51 PM, Alexandre Petrescu
> <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com <mailto:alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>> 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