Alexandru Petrescu wrote: > Le 11/06/2015 18:02, Jouni Korhonen a écrit : > > > > > > 6/4/2015, 7:08 AM, Alexandru Petrescu kirjoitti: > >> Le 04/06/2015 05:42, Templin, Fred L a écrit : > >>> Hi Alex, > >>> > >>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email protected]] > >>>> Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 8:36 AM > >>>> To: Templin, Fred L; Satoru Matsushima > >>>> Cc: dmm > >>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s > >>>> > >>>> Le 29/05/2015 20:21, Templin, Fred L a écrit : > >>>>> Hi Alex, > >>>>> > >>>>>> -----Original Message----- > >>>>>> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandru > >>>>>> Petrescu > >>>>>> Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:59 AM > >>>>>> To: Satoru Matsushima > >>>>>> Cc: dmm > >>>>>> Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s > >>>>>> > >>>>>> 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. > >>>>> > >>>>> How would it be if the vehicle received a single prefix, but it > >>>>> could be shorter than /64 (e.g., /56, /48. etc.)? Would the > >>>>> vehicle subnetting be satisfied if it received a shorter prefix > >>>>> from which many /64s could be allocated? > >>>> > >>>> Certainly yes. > >>>> > >>>> Each vehicle needs such a shorter-than-64 prefix allocated to it. > >>>> > >>>> For example, an automobile connecting to LTE receives a /62 from > >>>> the operator and makes four /64s out of it: one for its > >>>> CAN-entertainment, one for its CAN-safety, one for its WiFi and one for > >>>> its > Bluetooth. > >>>> > >>>> This is a MUST. > >>>> > >>>> Allocating a single /64 to a vehicle can not accommodate all these > >>>> unbridgeable subnets. > >>> > >>> OK, that is good. Giving a mobile router something shorter than /64 > >>> should be no problem, at least up to practical limitations of the > >>> prefix delegation authority's available prefix space. DHCPv6 PD > >>> provides all that is needed to give out right-sized prefixes. > >> > >> I agree DHCP-PD provides the necessary tool. But unfortunately the > >> cellular operators have not deployed DHCPv6-PD (although yes there is > >> some DHCP-non-PD in some IPv6/4G deployments). > >> > >> The common thinking at operators and advisers is still that a /64 > >> should be given to an User Equipment. > >> > >> This must change: the 3GPP specs and operator deployments must give > >> /62 to UEs, and not /64. > > > > I think we are not in the position to force operators or 3GPP to do > > anything, unfortunately. The best we can do is to make sure the > > protocols we work here in IETF are not prohibiting better deployments > > (see e.g. RFC6603 effort). 3GPP specs are not the show stoppers here. > > > > I know this is frustrating. For example some operators I know offer > > IPv6 PD on their fixed side of business but have no plans for similar > > on the cellular side.. reasons are many. I assume that identofying a > > strong enough use case would be the key. > > I would like to discuss these use cases. > > Use cases of grouping devices under a unique cellular connection are very > numerous: IPv6 automobiles, IPv6 tethering smartphones, IPv6 Things on > Personal Area Networks. > > All these devices need the cellular operator to deliver shorter-than-64 > prefixes > to a SIM connection.
For lack of a better description, the cellular side of businesses suffer from "bell head:" thinking, where the UE is an application endpoint. Nothing more occurs to them, because that is the product they have always supported. A routing function implies higher aggregate data rates than they have built the system to handle. I have been in front of many of them holding up UE and saying, "this is a ROUTER, get over it", and got nothing but blank stares back. The first use case on the list should be a wireline alternative/backup link for consumer CPE routers, and home control or security systems. That is simpler to support because the UE doesn't move around, so they can scale the infrastructure to align with demand without too much concern about that shifting quickly. Once the fear of downstream subnets is removed, working on the truly mobile use cases will be an easier mental hurdle to overcome. Tony ........... _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
