Re: vepc draft Rev. 04 - /62s to UE, not /64s

Le 11/06/2015 18:53, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> Responding to two in one:
>
>> -----Original Message----- From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]]
>> On Behalf Of Tony Hain Sent: Thursday, June 11, 2015 9:47 AM To:
>> 'Alexandru Petrescu'; 'Jouni Korhonen'; [email protected] 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:[email protected]] 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:[email protected]] 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 [email protected]
>
>> 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
>> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm

_______________________________________________
dmm mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm