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

[Alexandre Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 18/09/2019 à 03:23, Ca By a écrit :
[...]
> 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

I will not argue, even though it is a topic important to me.

We will write down in the draft a perspective in which 64share is 
deployed on many smartphones; we will write down that some opinions 
consider DHCPv6 to be a solution to a problem users/providers/markets 
does not have.

I let you know here that I do have the problem of running 64share and 
464xlat in cars.

Thank you for the comments.

Alex

> 
> 
>     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
>         [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>         https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>