Re: [v6ops] [E] New Version Notification for draft-mishra-v6ops-variable-slaac-problem-stmt-01.txt

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 04-Nov-20 22:20, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 3, 2020 at 5:09 AM Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
> 
>     So let's have a discussion whether there is a new operational problem here first:
> 
>       "The main problem is that SLAAC RA or PD allocates a /64 by the
>        wireless carrier 4G, 5G, 3GPP to mobile handset or hotspot, however
>        segmentation of the /64 via SLAAC is required so that downstream
>        interfaces can be further sub-netted."
> 
>     Why isn't that in v6ops scope?
> 
> 
> I'd say that is not in scope anywhere because there already exists a protocol that solves this problem. It's called DHCPv6 PD.

I meant that if 5G doesn't already define how to support an IPv6 "hotspot" solution, then there is an operational gap that could usefully be documented. The current draft doesn't do that, because it assumes a class of solution (SLAAC-based instead of PD-based) rather than stating the underlying problem.

Assuming that PD is the preferred solution, a description of how to do that in a 5G (or any 3GPP) deployment would be very desirable. If such a document already exists outside the IETF, that would be fine too.
 
> If there is an operational problem with DHCPv6 PD, then that might indeed be in scope for v6ops. That's not what the draft is about though. As far as I can see it doesn't mention DHCPv6 PD at all. The draft is about proposing a change to SLAAC, and as such is a protocol change that is not in scope for v6ops.

I agree that the draft as it stands is out of scope. I had to find the text quoted above to understand what the underlying problem migh be.

   Brian