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

Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org> Tue, 19 January 2021 03:19 UTC

Return-Path: <marka@isc.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 91C543A10A6 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:19:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=isc.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id BdDvqK3iaOuV for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mx.pao1.isc.org (mx.pao1.isc.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:0:2::2b]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D4EC3A10A4 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Jan 2021 19:19:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (zmx1.isc.org [149.20.0.20]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx.pao1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7E9313BD4DB; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from zmx1.isc.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 70FB7160053; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5042F16005D; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
DKIM-Filter: OpenDKIM Filter v2.9.2 zmx1.isc.org 5042F16005D
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isc.org; s=05DFB016-56A2-11EB-AEC0-15368D323330; t=1611026354; bh=V8SYwoQEpxVwVAdp/PWIVlRULEUQuWOlHgBuVVdrA/A=; h=Content-Type:Mime-Version:Subject:From:Date: Content-Transfer-Encoding:Message-Id:To; b=kVL9rVYUja0nMurFFiY0drRB+hlZ1T3D1VaCcUa9wWpU850Uo03uo/RRfGPbSbfAJ Y955rHxMEHi0H1H/JXI7fvPihq3dTuYFMqKVJoROYcxB/geHduj4n4DUC86gdJrusr wLhcun0f/txm6RXUQjZi/zqp4YdBSD9/Z/R21uj0=
Received: from zmx1.isc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (zmx1.isc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTP id c3B6AiWpKT0M; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:19:14 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from [1.0.0.3] (n114-75-69-161.bla3.nsw.optusnet.com.au [114.75.69.161]) by zmx1.isc.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7BA3D160053; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:19:13 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 11.5 \(3445.9.7\))
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-Reply-To: <f300119e-0233-c711-207e-6962d67e87bd@si6networks.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 14:19:10 +1100
Cc: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>, IPv6 <ipv6@ietf.org>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <D120371E-C9D7-4F62-ADDF-2C990AD0E6FC@isc.org>
References: <616b05ca-1a02-dfbd-d7f6-c79f56276fa1@gmail.com> <f300119e-0233-c711-207e-6962d67e87bd@si6networks.com>
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3445.9.7)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/6N8Mn32hLLylw3y6DMmxq5UcdKc>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 03:19:22 -0000


> 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