Hi Alex, I cannot comment on the supported network/service configuration in any operator's network. But, I’d think the allocation of stable /64’s is similar to static IPv4 (/32) address allocations that are supported in many operator networks today. There are also RADIUS / DIAMETER attributes such as Framed-IPv6-Prefix ..etc which can be used for obtaining statically configured values by PGW. So, IMO, its very much possible to allocate static IPv6 Per-UE prefixes for the UE. Its also possible to allocate static IPv6 prefixes for the networks behind UE. IMO, this is just a configuration and operators can surely do this today.
But, I am not sure where we are going with this? Sri On 4/24/18, 7:31 AM, "Alexandre Petrescu" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Sri, > >Is there an operator today that allocates a stable /64 in RA to User >Equipment? (resists re-connection) > >Alex > > >Le 26/03/2018 à 07:14, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : >> Alex: >> >> This is a good point. Yes, there is DHCPv6 prefix delegation support in >> 3GPP architecture for supporting mobile router use-cases. This is >> essentially for delegating prefixes for the networks attached to the UE. >> This was introduced in Rel-10 by cisco. I have not followed the recent >>SA2 >> discussions and I do not know if MR support based on DHCPv6 will >>continue >> to be supported or not, and if they have considered the alternative >> options for supporting the same. I think we can certainly ask that >> question, but I also wonder if the coloring is specific to the PDU >> session, or if its broadly applicable for all UE address/prefix >> assignments. >> >> >> Sri >> >> >> >> >> On 3/23/18, 2:48 AM, "dmm on behalf of Alexandre Petrescu" >> <[email protected] on behalf of [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Le 22/03/2018 à 18:49, Liaison Statement Management Tool a écrit : >>> [...] >>> >>>> SA2 would like to point out that among the four mechanisms for >>>> address configuration delivery mentioned in your LS reply (i.e. >>>> DHCPv4, DHCPv6, IPv6 ND and IKEv2) only the IPv6 ND mechanisms, and >>>> in particular the Router Advertisement message, seem to be applicable >>>> in the 5G System architecture in the specific context of Multi-homed >>>> IPv6 PDU Sessions. >>> Please tell SA2 that current 4G cellular networks are specified to, and >>> do use to some extent, DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation to assign a prefix to >>>an >>> end node like an IoT Router. >>> >>> A /56 prefix delivered to the end node should have the same >>>capabilities >>> as an address. We also want that /56 prefix to be more stable, or less >>> stable, etc. >>> >>> I dont understand why 5G System architecture excludes DHCPv6 from the >>> list of applicable address configuration delivery. >>> >>> I understand why 5G System architectures prefers ND - it is for >>>addresses. >>> >>> Alex >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> With respect to the following question in the IETF¹s reply LS: >>>> We also like to point out that, all though the LS >>>> statement explicitly refers to both IPv4 and IPv6 address types, >>>>however >>>> it only mentions about (RA) (IPv6 >>>> ND implied) as the mechanism for address property >>>> delivery. It is to be noted that the approach of delivering coloring >>>> meta-data in RA messages will most >>>> likely be to limited to IPv6 address/prefix types >>>>and >>>> will not be extended to IPv4 addresses. If this capability is required >>>> for IPv4, we may have to possibly >>>> extend DHCP protocol(s). >>>> >>>> We request 3GPP to clarify if the Ask is explicitly >>>> for IPv6, or if its for both IPv4 and IPv6 address/prefix types. >>>> >>>> >>>> SA2 would like to clarify that the request is explicitly for IPv6. SA2 >>>> discussed the example documents that were referenced in your LS reply >>>> and concluded that the following draft seems to be the most promising >>>> candidate for the problem under discussion in this correspondence: >>>> https://www.ietf.org/id/draft-feng-dmm-ra-prefixtype-01.txt. >>>> SA2 would like to kindly ask IETF DMM working group to keep SA2 >>>>updated >>>> of the work on the subject of including property meta-data in IPv6 ND >>>> address assignment procedures for potential use in the 5G System to >>>> indicate the mobility property of additional IPv6 prefixes assigned as >>>> part of the Multi-homed IPv6 PDU Session functionality. >>>> >>>> >>>> 2 Actions >>>> To IETF DMM working group: >>>> ACTION: SA2 would like to kindly ask IETF DMM working group to >>>> keep SA2 updated of the work on the subject of including property >>>> meta-data in IPv6 ND address assignment procedures for potential use >>>>in >>>> the 5G System to indicate the mobility property of additional IPv6 >>>> prefixes assigned as part of the Multi-homed IPv6 PDU Session >>>> functionality. >>>> >>>> >>>> 3 Dates of next TSG SA WG2 meetings >>>> TSG SA WG2 Meeting 127 16 - 20 Apr 2018 Sanya, CN >>>> TSG SA WG2 Meeting 127-Bis 28 May 1 Jun 2018 Newport Beach, US >>>> Attachments: >>>> >>>> S2-182967_was2844_LS_IETF_SSC3 >>>> >>>> >>>>https://www.ietf.org/lib/dt/documents/LIAISON/liaison-2018-03-22-3gpp-t >>>>sg >>>> >>>>sa-sa2-int-6man-dmm-ls-on-indicating-service-continuity-usage-of-the-ad >>>>di >>>> tional-ipv6-prefix-in-router-advertisement-attachment-1.docx >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> dmm mailing list >>>> [email protected] >>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> dmm mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
