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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <> Tue, 19 January 2021 17:22 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 47D173A13DF for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:22:03 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.361
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.361 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=gmcgHeYT; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=fb28Hy3i
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id woPtigju-2Ql for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:22:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 293C03A1642 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:21:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Proxmox) with ESMTP id CF02D1010A3 for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:21:56 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:from :from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to :subject:subject:to:to; s=mailgate; bh=OMZpbZFdYQBSq1+Aog5x+KfnS WKNgnu7Li6lZed+E0M=; b=gmcgHeYTROFwpiJh9o84HvaUbUQgIf8frPjTZwvgN lONxGgFQFWdqUl5ceInaGCGtP1nB2P36cHoDw6SL8LrjSpAY6lKGG2hgJL3p//3e OqGIhRNLxfvQQUAaUslPO1ZrOngfrO/An9aWv0DRMh4OEmZBK5Va2Dt88YRxtt4j YTv8Z5NdOldHnnhEJMgjLbnGVix/JBgHA0VM44ET+pmLI07+ZmERmrovcRRPN8WT P6uO3IT/5Q8hUf0CPeWulpMYVgeLP/gL9k1ZGV8KXfPvYxWsC9rmVm7RelUgytZK FG8e64CRFQAiHohWsV7gdn2gJuqBIbqnf5QWrn+5ypIRg==
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id B42F2100E6C for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:21:56 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Jans-Mac-mini.local (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ee2:e08:1b03::99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Actalis Client Authentication CA G2" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: jan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9678C2013E for <>; Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:21:56 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1611076916; bh=/P0fc3f557+We3+uWUUDnWwNQuqd3Z3FC2sSbie1+GQ=; h=To:References:From:Subject:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=fb28Hy3ix3m/Of0w+Ez2Kl3dbuJZtd59mVghtfjbiOUur40cq46cIhygiVO9bhLEv DENUmNQ89saoyFiwqNDqaGmk7Hq8vpDw4Tkx7VZDkB/eINN0tCCMjhWbBzAFE3fqBN iUAOxK9U7anZU6Huz9ByHBw27/DK9xtsYYgK+Co0=
References: <>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <>
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
Message-ID: <>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 18:21:55 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/85.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
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 17:22:03 -0000

On 18/01/2021 09:45, 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.


There are multiple different things to consider here. First of all, 
prefix that is assigned to mobile phone is negotiated through PDPv6 
establishment procedure and not by DHCPv6. That is mostly set to /64 
because different GGSNs choose the IPv6 address of your mobile phone 
differently (yes, I tried with the same mobile phone connecting to 
different GGSN vendors and IPv6 address host part was completely 
different between them, once having ::2 and next vendor declaring some 
random 64bit value as a host part). 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.

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