Ah OK. thanks. Slightly off-topic, I think that there is still chance for tethering with single /64 if it is allocated as a off-link prefix.
But yes, I agree with you. cheers, --satoru On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Alexandru Petrescu < alexandru.petre...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > In addition to what Behcet says. > > I read the example below. I think it is just an example, but just to make > sure. > > Please - do not allocate /64s to end users in a cellular network. Allocate > at least /62s to end users. > > This is to allow the smartphone to perform tethering (small network of > wifi devices connecting through the smartphone to the Internet). > > The assumption of /64 to end user is not good at all. > > (and yes, I agree that these /62s may be aggregated into a larger prefix > and advertised upstream as a single prefix instead of multiple host-based > routes). > > Yours, > > Alex Petrescu > > Le 26/05/2015 22:34, Behcet Sarikaya a écrit : > >> Hi Satoru, >> >> Thanks for your reply. >> >> Let me continue the discussion with your text in Section 3.2 where you >> mention >> vEPC may utilizes Forwarding Policy Configuration Protocol (FPCP) >> that defines FPCP Agent function and Client function. >> >> I don't understand how you could justify defining a new forwarding >> policy configuration protocol to do this Agent/Client functionality? >> Why not use similar Agent/Client models that are being defined rather >> than defining a new protocol? >> I think this point requires much stronger justification which I could >> not see in Section 3.2. >> >> Are you that we have to to reinvent the wheel, rather than reusing >> something that is already available? How are we going to reinvent that >> wheel also remains to be seen, I think. >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet >> >> >> >> On Sat, May 16, 2015 at 8:01 AM, Satoru Matsushima >> <satoru.matsush...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Hi Bechet-san, >>> >>> Thank you for your question. >>> In step (15), I meant that EPC-E advertises prefix including UE assigned >>> prefixes. >>> >>> For example, in the case of /64 prefixes assigned to UEs from a /56 >>> space, >>> that /56 >>> is advertised by EPC-E to upstream routers. So the advertised route isn't >>> host routes. >>> >>> Depends on configuration policy, but one case is that the source of that >>> advertised >>> /56 route might be statically configured in EPC-E. >>> >>> Regards, >>> --satoru >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 4:51 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com >>> > >>> wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> Hi Matsushima-san, >>>> >>>> I have a question on your draft: >>>> In Sec. 3.2, page 11, you say >>>> In step (15), the EPC-E advertises routes to upstream routers ... >>>> >>>> Are these routes static/host routes? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Behcet >>>> >>> >>> >>> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> dmm@ietf.org >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > dmm mailing list > dmm@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm >
_______________________________________________ dmm mailing list dmm@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
