Subject: RE: Should DAD be optional? [Wasdraft-ietf-ipv6-cellular-host-00. txt -> wg last call?]

From: "Hesham Soliman (ERA)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Mar 2002 00:23:30 +0100

Hi Charlie

I finally read the thread.
  
  > > I agree that it would be good to see some guidelines in an
  > > informational doc. However I disagree on the title change to
  > > IPv6 over cellular/3g. That is a different spec which we should
  > > also work on.
  > 
  > It is possible to design "cellular" systems where the
  > 3GPP/PDP address assignment is completely replaced by
  > localized, stateless methods.  The way that addresses
  > are assigned is not related to bandwidth, nor even to
  > essential authorization issues.  It's an artifact of
  > near-compatibility with existing 2.5G layouts.  GGSN
  > does not NECESSARILY need to control this process.
  > 
 
=> That's fine, but we have to deal with what *is*
right now and not what *may come*. 
There are people that want to roll out systems with
IPv6 support today, R&D will no doubt improve
things, but in this draft we need to deal with
the current specs.

Hesham

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: "Charles E. Perkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 06 Mar 2002 15:36:19 -0800

> things, but in this draft we need to deal with

That's exactly right, and I am suggesting that the draft
be renamed to be "IPv6-support-for-what-exists-today".

Regards,
Charlie P.

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Mar 2002 16:23:17 +0100

> be renamed to be "IPv6-support-for-what-exists-today".

Hi, appologies for a more than week old follow-up and this has
probably been mentioned.

Being confronted recently with the idea of using new unique ID's of
new links for inducing some uniqueness properties into IPv6 addresses
I think there's a need for more comfortable place within current IPv6
specs to accomodate those new things.

For example, how about better separating IPv6-over-Ethernet rfc2464
from the current address architecture draft of rfc2373?  My precise
suggestion would be to move EUI-64 and Modified EUI-64 from the latter
to the former.  Of course, there are reasons for it be where it is,
I'm just trying to understand why this is or is not possible.

Thanks,

Alex

---

From: Ignatios Souvatzis <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Mar 2002 16:39:54 +0100

> I'm just trying to understand why this is or is not possible.

The idea is to use the same 64bit Interface Identifier (especially if a
globally unique, e.g., derived from the EUI-64 of the node, if available,
or the EUI-64 of one of the Ethernet devices) also for an interface on 
a different link that has no globally unique identifier itself. (E.g., on
a serial point-to-point link, or Arcnet).

This way, the probability of address collisions, which have to be sorted
out somehow, is smaller.

Regards,
	-is

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu<[email-masked]>
Date: 14 Mar 2002 16:53:34 +0100

Ignatios Souvatzis <[email-masked]> writes:
> The idea is to use the same 64bit Interface Identifier (especially
> if a globally unique, e.g., derived from the EUI-64 of the node, if
> available, or the EUI-64 of one of the Ethernet devices) also for an
> interface on a different link that has no globally unique identifier
> itself. (E.g., on a serial point-to-point link, or Arcnet).

Aha, so a device that has two interfaces one towards an IEEE LAN link
and the other towards another type of link will inevitably prefer the
IEEE LAN identifier as being "more unique" than the others, right?
That's a cool idea, I would like to experiment with it.

Alex