Le 01/12/2011 20:22, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
On Thu, Dec 1, 2011 at 10:40, Alexandru Petrescu
<alexandru.petre...@gmail.com <mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com>> wrote:
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).
That's not true - RFC 6204 says that an IPv6 CE router can use autoconf
to create an address.
Is it possible to make RFC6204 IPv6 CE router to be an arbitrary Router,
like a handset device with cellular and wifi doing tethering, or like an
OBU with many cellular interfaces, or like sattelite routers? Could all
these be IPv6 CE Routers? (CE: Customer Equipment, DSL, BBF, I believe).
I think it's reasonable to say that if you were to
implement tethering using DHCPv6 PD, you would follow RFC 6204.
Hm, that seems good guide for this, and I wonder why is it INFORMATIONAL
and not on the Standards Track?
Alex
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.
See what I mean? We're already talking about not using RAs at all any
more, and we don't even have a DHCPv6 route option yet...
_______________________________________________
mif mailing list
mif@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/mif
