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

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 20 January 2021 05:56 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
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 2EAD53A005F for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:56:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.387
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.387 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 Az-6uRn_P-YG for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (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 A66CD3A0045 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 21:56:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 10K5uhEg004932 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:56:43 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 6A6C1202197 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:56:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet2-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.13]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5FEB8200CCF for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:56:43 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.14.0.116] ([10.14.0.116]) by muguet2-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 10K5uhrL017953 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:56:43 +0100
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
To: ipv6@ietf.org
References: <616b05ca-1a02-dfbd-d7f6-c79f56276fa1@gmail.com> <83351c64-0804-a4aa-c100-9b5705c9f71f@go6.si>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02e8b306-4aa9-4694-c4dd-a76285ee0771@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 06:56:42 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.6.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <83351c64-0804-a4aa-c100-9b5705c9f71f@go6.si>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/9WByPaaILDJLu3fTH_dN0LdiAoE>
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: Wed, 20 Jan 2021 05:56:48 -0000


Le 19/01/2021 à 18:21, Jan Zorz - Go6 a écrit :
[...]
> I would say that for single phone - /64 is enough as that's a single 
> host and I would not bother suggesting regulators to change that.

A single phone with a single interface concerned about IPv6 maybe one 
/64 is enough.

But a single phone with multiple interfaces concerned about IPv6 (e.g.
its cellular interface, its WiFi interface in AP mode and a virtual
interface for an internal virtual machine) - do you still think one /64
is enough?

Alex

> 
> However, if PDPv6 context is established and end-device is able to 
> send DHCPv6-PD request - then the system should react and assign to 
> that device a routable /56 - but that's the way PPPoE works today
> and mobile access should be no different. From what I remember -
> mobile routers already support DHCPv6-PD request - it's just a matter
> if mobile operator is actually listening on DPDv6 "tunnel" for that 
> request and react to it.
> 
> Maybe people from mobile equipment vendors can chime in and tell us 
> if that's supported or not.
> 
> Cheers, Jan
> 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>  IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative 
> Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
> --------------------------------------------------------------------