Re: [3gv6] about Prefix delegation in 3GPP EPC networks

[Behcet Sarikaya <behcetsarikaya@yahoo.com>]

Hi Zhengqiang,
  By the way as Frank mentioned, we had some good discussion on this issue last week on Friday in v6ops, so I am copying this mail to v6ops.
  In Sec. 2 of your contribution, you talk about UE carrying prefix length to the CN. I don't understand why this is needed as there are much simpler solutions.
  One such simple solution is described in our draft which was presented in v6ops http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-sarikaya-v6ops-prefix-delegation-00.txt

Please refer to this draft in your contribution.

Regards,

Behcet


----- Original Message ----
> From: "lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com" <lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com>
> To: suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
> Cc: jouni.korhonen@nsn.com; 3gv6@ietf.org; dhcwg@ietf.org
> Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 3:13:37 AM
> Subject: Re: [3gv6] about Prefix delegation in 3GPP EPC networks
> 
> 
The document I submitted to 3GPP is in the attachment. Please check it. 
> Thanks.

Zhenqiang Li


> -----Original Message-----
> 
> From: ext > href="mailto:lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com";>lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com
> 
> [mailto:> href="mailto:lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com";>lizhenqiang@chinamobile.com]
> 
> Sent: 30. maaliskuuta 2010 10:15
> To: > ymailto="mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com"; 
> href="mailto:suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com";>suresh.krishnan@ericsson.com
> 
> Cc: > href="mailto:youni.korhonen@nsn.com";>youni.korhonen@nsn.com; Savolainen 
> Teemu (Nokia-D/Tampere);
> > href="mailto:dhcwg@ietf.org";>dhcwg@ietf.org; > ymailto="mailto:3gv6@ietf.org"; 
> href="mailto:3gv6@ietf.org";>3gv6@ietf.org
> Subject: about Prefix 
> delegation in 3GPP EPC networks
> 
> Dear Suresh,
> 
> 
> Nice meeting you at IETF 77.
> 
> First of all, I agree with you 
> that it is good for a UE to use a
> shorter prefix to meet the situation, 
> rather than using multiple /64
> prefixes.
> 
> Some 
> additional comments about your draft:
> 1. Where to store the prefix 
> length that you reserved for each UE?
> 2. How to validate the request 
> from UE to avoid address abusing?
> 3. The proposed method in your draft 
> seems address wasting, because you
> reserve /x (x < 64) prefix for 
> each UE. It is better to store the
> minimum length that a UE can apply, 
> and assign the proper lengh to UE
> based on the available adrress pool, 
> the minimum length the UE can
> apply, and the length the UE actually 
> requests.
> 4. Are there any other alternatives besides DHCPv6-PD? I 
> listed some
> potential solutions in a 3GPP document. What is your opinion 
> to them?
> 
> Best Regards,
> Zhenqiang Li
> 
> 13911635816
> Department of Network Technology
> China Mobile 
> Research Institute
> 2010-03-26