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

Hi Fred,

Le 12/06/2015 17:24, Templin, Fred L a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[email protected]]
>> Sent: Friday, June 12, 2015 6:03 AM
>> To: Templin, Fred L; Tony Hain; 'Jouni Korhonen'; [email protected]
>> Subject: Re: [DMM] 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.
>
> Airplanes have lots of links - some satellite yes, but there are also
> cellular link types such as this:
>
> http://aircell.com/

That is a cellular link on-board of a plane, I think.  Maybe it requires 
a shorter-than-64 prefix from the satellite operator...

But is there a use-case with plane that connects to a cellular network 
while taxiing ?  I.e. slow speed, spend 1hour on the tarmac, connect the 
plane to Verizon, give passengers free WiFi to smartphones so use 
Internet to announce safe landing.

This latter certainly requires a shorter-than-64 prefix from the 
cellular operator.

Alex

>
> Thanks - Fred
> [email protected]
>
>> 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