Le 01/12/2011 18:24, Tao Sun a écrit :
Hi Jouni, Thanks for the clarification. That is ture GGSN/PGW is not
mandate to do relay. "May" instead of "shall" is used to describe
GGSN/PGW's action. The only mandate is to use RA to obtain /64
prefix.
And that mandate is not sufficient when the UE is actually a Router
("mobile hotspot", "tethering"). For these cases, DHCPv6-PD is
suggested by 3GPP specs. Thus, the 3GPP specs assume that a UE-Router
(new term for this conversation) runs both RA _and_ DHCP. But 3GPP
specs overlook the fact that an UE-Router would't use RA to
auto-configure an address (stateless autoconf is only for Hosts). Hence
3GPP specs could consider that _only_ DHCP should should be used by
DHCPv6. In this sense, the above only mandate ("use RA to obtain /64
prefix") could be dropped altogether.
Alex
Regards, Tao On Fri, Dec 2, 2011 at 12:43 AM, jouni korhonen
<jouni.nos...@gmail.com <mailto:jouni.nos...@gmail.com>> wrote:
On Nov 30, 2011, at 8:18 PM, Tao Sun wrote:
Forgot to include a website link in the previous email. Now I
included it.
Regards,
Tao Sun
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 2:13 AM, Tao Sun <hisun...@gmail.com
<mailto:hisun...@gmail.com>> wrote:
Hi All,
Thanks for the discussion. As one of the author of the draft, I
would like to share our view on DHCPv6 used case in three aspects.
*Network management and configuration. 1. It is efficient for the
network to configure this in a central
DHCPv6 server to do unified routing policy configuration. The
gateways (e.g., GGSN in cellular network) only need to perform DHCPv6
relay.
Just want to point out that 3GPP specs do not define/mandate DHCPv6
relay function in GGSN/PGW.. It is a server when seen from the UE
point of view.
[snip]
- JOuni
_______________________________________________ mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
