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

Alexandre Petrescu <> Tue, 19 January 2021 08:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8B2DA3A134B for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:54:06 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.387
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 ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sg8N1TDEh0cQ for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B06673A1171 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 00:54:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 10J8s3JR015079; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:54:03 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EBFB52069C6; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:54:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB80A204DBC; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:54:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 10J8s21Z025516; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:54:02 +0100
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
To: Mark Andrews <>, Fernando Gont <>
Cc: IPv6 <>
References: <> <> <>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:54:02 +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: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 08:54:07 -0000

Le 19/01/2021 à 04:19, Mark Andrews a écrit :
>> On 19 Jan 2021, at 09:04, Fernando Gont <> 
>> 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.

Could be an idea.

I first formulated it as a need of other-than-64 prefix lengths, and not
in terms of a protocol to require.

We might see whether or not the regulator considers the necessity to
require a particular protocol such as DHCPv6 and DHCPv6-PD.

In the context, this particular regulator was able to formulate a
intentionally brief requirement of deploying 'IPv6 compatible routing'
when allocating spectrum for 5G to mobile operators; it means operators
get 5G spectrum only if they commit on a simple IPv6 commitment too
(among other non-tech commitments).  However, the regulator has
reluctance in expanding that brief 'IPv6 compatible routing'
requirement, because of having experienced too complex requirements that
were too hard check compliance with.

This is one of the reasons I suspect that formulating a simple req only
on the prefix length (and not on protocol compliance) might have some
chance to get through all the way to operators.

Another reason is the following: I suspect a non-64 plen requirement
might be dealt with between the regulator and the operator, whereas a
DHCPv6 protocol requirement might need to involve the modem manufacturer
as well.  It would be a longer path between 3 parties, rather than 2.


> 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:
>> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1
>> E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> Administrative Requests: 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------