> best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always to provide a /64 > prefix.
But, how does that work with ILA's approach of identifier management? With the previously IETF recommended approaches in RFC5213 and even in 3GPP architecture, per RFC3315, the network assigned a set of unique prefixes for each MN, allowed the MN to generate the identifiers. Even CGA addressing worked with the per-MN prefix model. But, with ILA there is no concept of prefix assignment. Will ILA network now generate a identifier block for each MN? Is DHCPv6 the only approach? If that block is not summarizable, will it not result in mapping table size getting multiple many times? Sri From: dmm <dmm-boun...@ietf.org<mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org>> on behalf of Lorenzo Colitti <lore...@google.com<mailto:lore...@google.com>> Date: Monday, February 5, 2018 at 8:52 PM To: Tom Herbert <t...@quantonium.net<mailto:t...@quantonium.net>> Cc: "i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>" <i...@ietf.org<mailto:i...@ietf.org>>, dmm <dmm@ietf.org<mailto:dmm@ietf.org>> Subject: Re: [DMM] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-herbert-ila-mobile-00.txt On Fri, Feb 2, 2018 at 6:27 AM, Tom Herbert <t...@quantonium.net<mailto:t...@quantonium.net>> wrote: We like like to request that the dmm WG consider ILA as a candidate protocol for the 3GPP "Study on User Plane Protocol in 5GC". Echoing Tom's earlier comment about this: I think the address assignment sections (6.3 and 8.3) should be reworded to clarify that for general purpose hosts, best practice is not to use singleton addresses, but always to provide a /64 prefix.
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
