Subject: Re: [Banana] Slides for Bonding Solution Presentation at IETF 95

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 12:46:25 -0300

Single IP: it's harder and harder to think Single IP.

At IETF the privacy considerations work in 6man makes it that the IP is 
changing so that it can not be tracked.

In IPv6, if using SLAAC (not DHCPv6), then there is a single _prefix_.

Yours,

Alex

Le 05/04/2016 19:46, Margaret Cullen a écrit :
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Banana mailing list
> [email-masked]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/banana
>

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 17:17:43 +0000

You should think of it as single prefix and the solution still works

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 7 Apr 2016 18:40:23 -0300

> You should think of it as single prefix and the solution still works

Yes, I agree.

But calling it "single IP" maybe should be "single IP prefix".

BEcause in LTE networks the network never gives an IPv6 address to an 
end node.  It _advertises_ a prefix on the link to the node, and the 
node forms an IPv6 address out of it.

Moreover, the node (CPE on LTE) can form as many IP addresses as it 
wants out of that prefix.

This kind of behaviour (form multiple IPv6 addresses out of a prefix 
advetised by the LTE to User Equipment) is used extensively by e.g. 
T-Mobile in their tethering solution, an informational RFC.

It could be advantageous at home too: the CPE gives some of these 
addresses to the IP devices in-home.

Contrary to IPv4, in IPv6 the NAT is much less widespread so there _is_ 
a need to transform that "Single IP" that LTE gives to PCs in-home, 
especially if there is no tunnelling in the bonding mechanism.

Alex

---

From: "Henderickx, Wim (Nokia - BE)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 8 Apr 2016 00:40:56 +0000

Yes I agree and we can change the naming to make it agnostic of v4/v6