Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?

Philip Homburg <> Fri, 27 November 2020 16:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EFF9D3A0937 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:43:57 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.499
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.499 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, KHOP_HELO_FCRDNS=0.399, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id caJihMsv9W9y for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:43:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:888:1044:10:2a0:c9ff:fe9f:17a9]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 021023A0934 for <>; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 08:43:55 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kigqX-0000ETC; Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:43:45 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2020 14:14:01 +0100 ." <>
Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 17:43:45 +0100
Archived-At: <>
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 27 Nov 2020 16:43:58 -0000

> Can you please write a draft explaining how it is supposed to work?
> And if it is true as you say that it is currently implemented and
> deployed, what implementations support that, how do the topologies
> look like etc? I work for a reasonably large vendor I can guarantee
> you that we have not implemented support for ephemeral addressing.
> ;-)

Maybe we are talking about different things.

What I'm talking about if that applications on phones keep working even if
the phone witch between mobile and wifi connections or moves from one
wifi to the next.

Similarly laptops can move from one wifi to the next. VM running on a laptop
can be taken from one wifi to the next and keep working, etc.

Nobody expects to reboot a phone or laptop just because you connect to another
wifi. In the case of the VMs running on my laptop, they are bridged, so they
pick up new addresses even though there connections stay up.

Now the question is we can also make this work for prefixes. Can I give
my VMs a separate prefix and expect that to be updated as I move around.

If vendors of network equipment don't care about this, then there is always
IPv4 and NAT. Or maybe IPv6 and NAT.