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

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.

It's no more than a workaround.

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.

Regards,
Mark.

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