Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G

> On 19 Jan 2021, at 09:04, Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi, Alex,
> 
> On 18/1/21 05:45, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
>> Hi, 6MANners,
>> Today I formulated a brief personal email to some person(s) at the
>> regulator agency suggesting the allocation of shorter-than-64 prefixes
>> (e.g. /56) to end users.
>> I explained that the current situation where each of the mobile
>> operators deliver a /64 and not shorter to smartphones is not usable for
>> networks such as mobile hotspots or in-car multi-subnet networks.
>> I informed that there are some I-D proposals of Variable SLAAC that is
>> relatively refused at IETF because of the IETF necessity of 64bit (and
>> not shorter) IIDs.
> 
> This seems to be confusing things.
> 
> Proposals for "classless IPv6" (e.g.: draft-bourbaki-6man-classless-ipv6) are meant to allow SLAAC to work with *longer* prefixes (i.e., shorter IIDs)
> 
> Shorter prefixes (i.e., bigger address blocks leased to users) are already supported by DHCPv6-PD, without the need of any additional protocol action.

I think the intent of the message was to get regulators to force operators to *use* DHCPv6-PD with short prefixes.

There is too big a power differential between the cellular user that want to be able to have multiple subnets and the telcos for free market economics to work.

> Thanks,
> -- 
> Fernando Gont
> SI6 Networks
> e-mail: fgont@si6networks.com
> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
> 
> 
> 
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> ipv6@ietf.org
> Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
> --------------------------------------------------------------------

-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka@isc.org