Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC

[<[e-mail]>]

Hello all,

I believe this needs to be looked at. DNS server addresses are sent from the network to the mobile host ("CE" in this scenario) by outband 3GPP signalling and need to be queried by the CE OS driver from the radio chip.

In order to convey the DNS information to the clients attached via the LAN, the CE performing 64share needs to handle the DHCP solicits and answer on the network's behalf because simply forwarding the DHCP solicits will not work at all (the network won't answer them).

Holger

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] Im Auftrag von Mark ZZZ Smith
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 18. September 2013 23:59
An: Teemu Savolainen; Tassos Chatzithomaoglou; [e-mail]
Betreff: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC

+1

This purpose here is to describe a work around to a limitation, not to specify how RAs/DHCPv6 are supposed to be generally used and what options are present in them. I don't think RA or DHCPv6 options that aren't essential or useful to this *specific* scenario should be mentioned at all. DNS in RAs is not special to or necessary to sharing a /64.

Generally related to DHCPv6 option passing across a CE device (of which this would be one), I posted the following draft a while ago. I'd be interested in comments.

"IPv6 CE Device DHCPv6 Option Transparency"

http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-smith-v6ops-ce-dhcpv6-transparency-00





>________________________________
> From: Teemu Savolainen <[e-mail]>
>To: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou <[e-mail]>; "[e-mail]" 
><[e-mail]>
>Sent: Monday, 16 September 2013 4:12 PM
>Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC
> 
>
>
>IMHO it is better to keep this draft focused solely on address sharing, and not to go to other configuration topic or other possible problems.
>
>Btw most often, as of now, the "original" DNS server addresses are received via link layer signaling (see http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-ietf-v6ops-rfc3316bis-06.txt section 2.10), and thus, for example, may need to be added to "proxied" RA.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Teemu
>
>________________________________
> From: Tassos Chatzithomaoglou
>Sent: ‎15.‎9.‎2013 23:20
>To: [e-mail]
>Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-64share WGLC
>
>Just a quick question...
>
>I don't see any reference of DNS servers under 3.1, only MTU & Prefix.
>Shouldn't there be a bullet showing that DNS info (UE address as DNS proxy, or original through-RA/DHCPv6 DNS servers) should also pass on the LAN link?
>
>--
>Tassos
>
>Fred Baker wrote on 15/9/2013 21:00:
>> This is to initiate a two week working group last call of 
>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share.  Please read it 
>> now. If you find nits (spelling errors, minor suggested wording 
>> changes, etc), comment to the authors; if you find greater issues, 
>> such as disagreeing with a statement or finding additional issues 
>> that need to be addressed, please post your comments to the list.
>>
>> We are looking specifically for comments on the importance of the 
>> document as well as its content. If you have read the document and 
>> believe it to be of operational utility, that is also an important 
>> comment to make.
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[e-mail]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>
>
_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops