Subject: [v6ops] draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-01.txt

From: Dmytro Shytyi <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 18 Apr 2018 23:36:40 +0200

Dear v6opsers,

We are happy to introduce the new version (v.01) of the DANIR draft.
It has a new figure that describes the setting that works entirely with DHCPv6-PD.
Please have a look by following the next link: https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-01

Name:        draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir 

Revision:    01 

Title:        DHCPv6_PD, PDP and NDP Implementation in IoT Router (DANIR) 

Group:        Individual Submission 

Pages:        18 
Abstract: 

This document provides a description of the implementation of Dynamic 

Host Configuration Protocol version 6 Prefix Delegation, Neighbour 

Discovery Protocol and of the use of the Packet Data Protocol in an 

Internet of Things Router. This Internet of Things Router is 

connected on a cellular network; it is a DHCPv6-PD Client and it 

requests a /56 pool of prefixes from the server; the DHCPv6-PD server 

is placed in the PGW and is a part of the cellular infrastructure. 

After the pool of prefixes is delegated, the Internet of Things 

Router derives sub-prefixes from the prefix pool; each one of these 

sub-prefixes is aimed at one ingress interface. 

After the Internet of Things Router finishes the network prefix 

assignment procedure, it advertises the network prefixes on the 

ingress links by using the Neighbour Discovery protocol. Finally, 

when Hosts receive the sub-prefixes via Router Adverticement 

messages, they configure the Global Unique Address with the Stateless 

Address Auto-configuration protocol. 

_____________
Dmytro SHYTYI

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2018 15:53:03 +0900

I've only scanned the document quickly, but I'm curious: in which ways
is this different from regular CPE behaviour where, say, the CPE has
an LTE interface for connection to the Internet?

On 19 April 2018 at 06:36, Dmytro Shytyi <[email-masked]> wrote:
> Please have a look by following the next link:
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-shytyi-v6ops-danir-01
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2018 18:06:55 +0200

Hi Erik,

Thanks for the comment.

Le 19/04/2018 à 08:53, Erik Kline a écrit :
> I've only scanned the document quickly, but I'm curious: in which
> ways is this different from regular CPE behaviour where, say, the CPE
> has an LTE interface for connection to the Internet?

There is probably no difference: the CPE connects its LTE interface to
the Internet, just like the ARM or the laptop in figures on pages 7 and
8 respectively connect their modem or USB dongles. The CPE, just like
the ARM, or like the laptop, will run a DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation Client.

We could describe that CPE-with-LTE in a new figure, if necessary. But I 
would request to be hinted by someone explaining that DHCPv6_PD on CPE 
with LTE interface was tried and it worked with a /56.

(there are a few kinds of CPE using LTE to go to Internet: either use an
internal LTE modem card, or an USB dongle or maybe a user's smartphone;
in this latter case the DHCPv6-PD Client would not run on the CPE but on
the smartphone, and so there would be more differences than what we
describe in the draft; so only someone who tried DHCPv6-PD on CPE with
cellular and made it work would hint about how it worked).

Alex

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 10:44:54 +0200

I mean: I think there is no difference from a regular  CPE behaviour, 
where CPE has an LTE interface for connection to the Internet.

Why do you ask?

Alex

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 17:58:41 +0900

On 24 April 2018 at 17:44, Alexandre Petrescu
<[email-masked]> wrote:
> I mean: I think there is no difference from a regular  CPE behaviour, where
> CPE has an LTE interface for connection to the Internet.
>
> Why do you ask?

Because it calls into question the necessity of having such a document.

It sounds like you're saying that this is essentially documenting
things that are already documented elsewhere.

>> would request to be hinted by someone explaining that DHCPv6_PD on CPE with
>> LTE interface was tried and it worked with a /56.
>>

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 24 Apr 2018 11:07:18 +0200

> things that are already documented elsewhere.

There is a fine distinction between documents and documents that work.

Alex