Le 25/04/2012 10:33, jouni korhonen a écrit :
On Apr 24, 2012, at 3:20 PM, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
[snip]
As for #3: RFC 6204 doesn't specify any specific technology, and it's
certainly not limited to ADSL. Much of the behaviour it specifies is
equally applicable to CPEs whose uplink is a cellular link.
?
'CPE' is not a term used for the cellular links, I think. RFC6204 says
'residential or small-office router'. I think it is a stretch to claim
that RFC6204 applies to cellular links. E.g. few if any cellular
RFC6204 is not necessarily the best fit for cellular (6204bis does it
better)
Do you mean http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-6204bis-08 ?
but it definitely does not preclude one making a compliant CE
device with a cellular WAN link.
terminals use DHCP as of today, whereas RFC6204 would require them all
to. Also, RFC6204 requires all cellular terminals to use Ethernet
So? You would most likely use your cellular just as a modem to connect
to network and the rest of the system& stack would be in the host side
of the CE. This is sometimes referred as the "split-UE" in 3GPP circles.
encapsulation on their WAN interface whereas none actually does.
All WLL-* requirements start with "If the WAN interface supports.."
effectively making the following MUST conditional. Those MUSTs, like
for ethernet, apply only when the WAN implements the said technology.
No cellular air interface to the terminal technology implements Ethernet
encapsulation, so I don't understand the presence of that precluding If
qualifier. (802.16 is not cellular).
There is another RFC - 3316 - "IPv6 for some 2G and 3G Cellular Hosts"
which relates more to cellular.
Or a bit more recent RFC6459.
Thanks for the pointer to RFC6459 "IPv6 in 3GPP EPS". I checked its
Prefix Delegation section and I have comments on it, but I guess it's
not here to be discussed about.
BAsically that section does not tell what a UE router receving a /64 can
do with its Ethernet-compatible attached devices doing SLAAC. In
practice that means to either forbid SLAAC for the devices (use DHCP) or
impossibility to use the /64 coming from the network.
This section together with 3GPP documents I looked at recently are pure
forms of speculation with no implementation couterpart.
(in other document we propose a solution for it, which, if given way,
makes further the case for using default routes also in DHCP).
Alex
- Jouni
Alex
_______________________________________________
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
