Lorenzo, It is 3GPP practice (or law, should I say) is to assign a prefix in IPv6 to the UE. That is what Peter is talking about.
Regards, Behcet On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 2:12 PM, Peter McCann <peter.mcc...@huawei.com> wrote: > With a fixed access network the prefix can be assigned to the link and used > by anyone who joins the link. > > > > With a prefix offering mobility the prefix belongs to the mobile host and > needs to move with it. There aren’t enough prefixes (even in IPv6) to > assign a permanent prefix to each UE for every topological attachment point > that it might visit or start a session from. > > > > -Pete > > > > > > From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:lore...@google.com] > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 3:09 PM > To: Peter McCann <peter.mcc...@huawei.com> > Cc: jouni.nospam <jouni.nos...@gmail.com>; > draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobil...@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 > > > > But you have that problem with IP addresses as well, right? I don't see how > "assigning a prefix with certain properties" requires more state in the > network than "assigning an IP address with certain properties". > > > > On Fri, Dec 2, 2016 at 12:00 PM, Peter McCann <peter.mcc...@huawei.com> > wrote: > > Providing any kind of mobility service for a prefix will require some state > somewhere in the network. It would be great to avoid an allocation request > / response for the prefix, but the state has to be created somehow before > the UE can use the prefix and it has to be reclaimed eventually after the UE > stops using the prefix (which may not be until well after it disconnects > from the current link and moves to another one). > > > > Would welcome any suggestions on how to manage this state. > > > > -Pete > > > > > > From: dmm [mailto:dmm-boun...@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti > Sent: Friday, December 02, 2016 12:04 PM > To: jouni.nospam <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> > Cc: draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobil...@ietf.org; dmm@ietf.org > Subject: Re: [DMM] WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08 > > > > Hi, > > > > I like the goal of reducing network cost by allowing the use of IP addresses > that do not require network mobility, but we should not be doing this by > requesting IP addresses from the network, because this violates IPv6 address > assignment best practices. > > > > Specifically, RFC 7934 recommends that a) the network should provide > multiple addresses from each prefix and b) the network should allow the host > to use new addresses without requiring explicit requests to the network. > This is in conflict with at least this text in the draft, which says: > > > > In case an application > > requests one, the IP stack shall make an attempt to configure one by > > issuing a request to the network. If the operation fails, the IP > > stack shall fail the associated socket request > > > > One way to resolve this conflict would be to say that the network must not > assign individual addresses, but /64 (or shorter) prefixes. So if the device > desires to use fixed IPv6 addresses, then the network should give the host a > fixed IPv6 prefix from which the host can form as many addresses as it > wants. > > > > I do not think we should advance this document until the conflicts are > resolved. This document is about IPv6 address assignment to mobile nodes, > and we should not publish a document about IPv6 address assignment that > conflicts with best current practices on IPv6 address assignment. > > > > Regards, > > Lorenzo > > > > On Mon, Nov 28, 2016 at 12:56 PM, jouni.nospam <jouni.nos...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > Folks, > > > > The authors of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-07 and > draft-sijeon-dmm-use-cases-api-source have come up with a merged document > draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08. > > > > This email starts a 2 week WGLC for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility-08. > > The WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16. > > > > Provide your comments, concerns and approvals to the email list (and > hopefully also to IssueTracker). > > > > - Jouni & Dapeng > > > > > > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > > From: IETF Secretariat <ietf-secretariat-re...@ietf.org> > > Subject: IETF WG state changed for draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility > > Date: November 28, 2016 at 12:51:34 PM PST > > To: <draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobil...@ietf.org>, <dmm-cha...@ietf.org>, > <max....@alibaba-inc.com> > > Resent-From: <alias-boun...@ietf.org> > > Resent-To: jouni.nos...@gmail.com, maxpass...@gmail.com > > > > > The IETF WG state of draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility has been changed to > "In WG Last Call" from "WG Document" by Jouni Korhonen: > > https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dmm-ondemand-mobility/ > > > Comment: > WGLC starts 11/28/16 and ends 12/12/16. > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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
