Subject: RE: updates to IPv6 over PPP spec.

From: "Barany, Pete" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 16:14:15 -0800

The rationale also fails to account for 3GPP2 networks (cdma2000). Here,
PPP (IPV6CP) is used to obtain an IPv6 address for the mobile (or the
MIPv6 CoA for the mobile). UMTS uses a PDP context instead.

Since 3GPP2 has mandated a restriction that the /64 prefix advertised to
a mobile by a PDSN (similar to 'GGSN' if you are a UMTS-only person) be
unique/exclusive to that PPP link, then there is no need for the
suggested update #1 below. In fact, quite the contrary.

- Pete

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of
Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)
Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 1:42 PM
To: 'srihari varada'; [email-masked]
Cc: Brian Haberman; Bob Hinden; Alex Conta; [email-masked]
Subject: RE: updates to IPv6 over PPP spec.

 > (1) The Duplicate address detection shouldn't be recommended to be 
 > disabled, if the IPv6CP negotiates interface identifier with 
 > the peer.
 > *
 > *
 > 
 >     *Rationale:*
 > 
 >     (a) In the mobile (3GPP) networks the host isn't stationary. As
 >     such, the interface identifier uniqueness may not be ensured at
 >     different space points in the provider network (for 
 > instance, in the
 >     case of randomly generated Interface Identifier). This would then
 >     warrant the mobile host to trigger duplicate address detection as
 >     and when it changes it's position.

(a) doesn't seem correct to me. In terms of 3GPP nets the host is
stationary with respect to its default router. Also as recommended
in RFC 3314 an entire /64 is assigned to a mobile's connection so DAD
is not useful. Looks to me like the 3GPP case would actually be in
favour of disabling DAD.

/Karim

This communication is confidential and intended solely for the
addressee(s). Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution
is prohibited. If you believe this message has been sent to you in
error, please notify the sender by replying to this transmission and
delete the message without disclosing it. Thank you.

E-mail including attachments is susceptible to data corruption,
interruption, unauthorized amendment, tampering and viruses, and we only
send and receive e-mails on the basis that we are not liable for any
such corruption, interception, amendment, tampering or viruses or any
consequences thereof.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
[email-masked]
Administrative Requests: https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2004 06:14:40 +0200 (EET)

> suggested update #1 below. In fact, quite the contrary.

Umm.. but doesn't the access router which terminates the PPP link also
have an address from that /64 prefix (e.g., ::1) -- or does it have a
link-local address only?

In case such an assumption is made, it should be spelled out clearly 
enough.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings