Subject: [v6ops] about the draft /64 'sharing' 'tethering' draft-byrne-v6ops-64share-03

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 08 Nov 2012 19:34:47 +0100

Hello,

I have the following comments about draft-byrne-v6ops-64share-03.

I walk a fine line of WG with respect to recommendations elsewhere.

This /64 tethering to make a cellular terminal act like an IPv6 hotspot
is highly needed.  The mobile routers I work with highly need this.  To
avoid it I use Mobile IPv6, but that requires HA in the infra.

This is needed not only for 3GPP terminals.  It's also for an ADSL box
which receives a /64 from operator and uses a ptp link from terminal to
infrastructure.

In netext, I wrote an individual submission draft about how to make a
"prefix division" for a Mobile Router (with Proxy MIP in the infra).
It's section 2.1 "HNP Division" of draft-petrescu-netext-pmip-nemo-01.txt.

With respect to technical detail to your draft...

I think an example is very good.  You give an example but it could be
better illustrated.

Then,

> When tethering a LAN, the UE may then assign that same address to its
> LAN interface with a /64 subnet

I have some doubts about this, but they could be clarified.  For example,

When the same address is present on both interfaces, will an application
choose rightly the outgoing interface, or are there risks of choosing
the wrong interface?

To that end, it would be good to explain in the example what are the
routing table entries, exemplify.  Or say that never applications run on
this device, but on the Hosts attached to hotspot.

The reason I am asking this is the following.  In the past there was
much discussion about making an HA (Home Agent) work from MIP to
MIP/NEMO.  The initial proposals also considered this HA to have same
address on an egress and on an ingress interface.  It could work, but as
spec went on we realized there were some problems and dropped that.  I
want to make sure we have no reason here to drop this.

Alex