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

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
> <[email protected]> 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 <[email protected]>
>> 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
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
>
>