Le 29/05/2015 15:30, Satoru Matsushima a écrit :
Ah OK. thanks. Slightly off-topic, I think that there is still chance for tethering with single /64 if it is allocated as a off-link prefix.
Yes, there is still such a chance. But it can not tether more than one single subnet. Connected vehicles need several subnets.
Alex
But yes, I agree with you. cheers, --satoru On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Alexandru Petrescu <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi, In addition to what Behcet says. I read the example below. I think it is just an example, but just to make sure. Please - do not allocate /64s to end users in a cellular network. Allocate at least /62s to end users. This is to allow the smartphone to perform tethering (small network of wifi devices connecting through the smartphone to the Internet). The assumption of /64 to end user is not good at all. (and yes, I agree that these /62s may be aggregated into a larger prefix and advertised upstream as a single prefix instead of multiple host-based routes). Yours, Alex Petrescu Le 26/05/2015 22:34, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : Hi Satoru, Thanks for your reply. Let me continue the discussion with your text in Section 3.2 where you mention vEPC may utilizes Forwarding Policy Configuration Protocol (FPCP) that defines FPCP Agent function and Client function. I don't understand how you could justify defining a new forwarding policy configuration protocol to do this Agent/Client functionality? Why not use similar Agent/Client models that are being defined rather than defining a new protocol? I think this point requires much stronger justification which I could not see in Section 3.2. Are you that we have to to reinvent the wheel, rather than reusing something that is already available? How are we going to reinvent that wheel also remains to be seen, I think. Regards, Behcet On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Satoru Matsushima <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Bechet-san, Thank you for your question. In step (15), I meant that EPC-E advertises prefix including UE assigned prefixes. For example, in the case of /64 prefixes assigned to UEs from a /56 space, that /56 is advertised by EPC-E to upstream routers. So the advertised route isn't host routes. Depends on configuration policy, but one case is that the source of that advertised /56 route might be statically configured in EPC-E. Regards, --satoru On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Hi Matsushima-san, I have a question on your draft: In Sec. 3.2, page 11, you say In step (15), the EPC-E advertises routes to upstream routers ... Are these routes static/host routes? Regards, Behcet _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
