Le 11/06/2015 18:53, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
Responding to two in one:
-----Original Message----- From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org]
On Behalf Of Tony Hain Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:47 AM To:
'Alexandru Petrescu'; 'Jouni Korhonen'; dmm@ietf.org Subject: Re:
[DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s
Alexandru Petrescu wrote:
Le 11/06/2015 18:02, Jouni Korhonen a écrit :
6/4/2015, 7:08 AM, Alexandru Petrescu kirjoitti:
Le 04/06/2015 05:42, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
Hi Alex,
-----Original Message----- From: Alexandru Petrescu
[mailto:alexandru.petre...@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday,
June 03, 2015 8:36 AM To: Templin, Fred L; Satoru
Matsushima Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc draft Rev. 04
- /62s to UE, not /64s
Le 29/05/2015 20:21, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
Hi Alex,
-----Original Message----- From: dmm
[mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Alexandru
Petrescu Sent: Friday, May 29, 2015 10:59 AM To:
Satoru Matsushima Cc: dmm Subject: Re: [DMM] vepc
draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s
Le 29/05/2015 15:30, Satoru Matsushima a écrit :
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.
Yes, there is still such a chance. But it can not
tether more than one single subnet. Connected
vehicles need several subnets.
How would it be if the vehicle received a single
prefix, but it could be shorter than /64 (e.g., /56,
/48. etc.)? Would the vehicle subnetting be satisfied
if it received a shorter prefix from which many /64s
could be allocated?
Certainly yes.
Each vehicle needs such a shorter-than-64 prefix
allocated to it.
For example, an automobile connecting to LTE receives a
/62 from the operator and makes four /64s out of it: one
for its CAN-entertainment, one for its CAN-safety, one
for its WiFi and one for its
Bluetooth.
This is a MUST.
Allocating a single /64 to a vehicle can not accommodate
all these unbridgeable subnets.
OK, that is good. Giving a mobile router something shorter
than /64 should be no problem, at least up to practical
limitations of the prefix delegation authority's available
prefix space. DHCPv6 PD provides all that is needed to give
out right-sized prefixes.
I agree DHCP-PD provides the necessary tool. But
unfortunately the cellular operators have not deployed
DHCPv6-PD (although yes there is some DHCP-non-PD in some
IPv6/4G deployments).
The common thinking at operators and advisers is still that a
/64 should be given to an User Equipment.
This must change: the 3GPP specs and operator deployments
must give /62 to UEs, and not /64.
I think we are not in the position to force operators or 3GPP
to do anything, unfortunately. The best we can do is to make
sure the protocols we work here in IETF are not prohibiting
better deployments (see e.g. RFC6603 effort). 3GPP specs are
not the show stoppers here.
I know this is frustrating. For example some operators I know
offer IPv6 PD on their fixed side of business but have no plans
for similar on the cellular side.. reasons are many. I assume
that identofying a strong enough use case would be the key.
I would like to discuss these use cases.
Use cases of grouping devices under a unique cellular connection
are very numerous: IPv6 automobiles, IPv6 tethering smartphones,
IPv6 Things on Personal Area Networks.
Yes, yes and yes. Also IPv6 airplanes.
What is the use case when an airplane connects to a cellular operator?
They are supposed to be on sattelite often, I guess.
Alex
All these devices need the cellular operator to deliver
shorter-than-64 prefixes to a SIM connection.
For lack of a better description, the cellular side of businesses
suffer from "bell head:" thinking, where the UE is an application
endpoint. Nothing more occurs to them, because that is the product
they have always supported. A routing function implies higher
aggregate data rates than they have built the system to handle. I
have been in front of many of them holding up UE and saying, "this
is a ROUTER, get over it", and got nothing but blank stares back.
Indeed. But, this is the ongoing dialogue that we need to continue
no matter how many blank stares we get.
Thanks - Fred fred.l.temp...@boeing.com
The first use case on the list should be a wireline
alternative/backup link for consumer CPE routers, and home control
or security systems. That is simpler to support because the UE
doesn't move around, so they can scale the infrastructure to align
with demand without too much concern about that shifting quickly.
Once the fear of downstream subnets is removed, working on the
truly mobile use cases will be an easier mental hurdle to
overcome.
Tony
...........
_______________________________________________ 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
