RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: I-D Action: draft-mishra-6man-variable-slaac-01.txt

["Manfredi (US), Albert E" <[e-mail]>]

-----Original Message-----
From: ipv6 <[e-mail]> On Behalf Of Alexandre PETRESCU

> If we run SLAAC-GUA with a plen 65 and IID 63 _behind_ the Mobile 
Router, not on its 3GPP interface, then the operator is not concerned by 
this solution.

> In other words, the mobile operator could continue to do SLAAC-64, or 
DHCPv6-PD if it so wishes, and the 3GPP modem manufacturer continue to 
do 64 and block multicast.  But the SLAAC-65 and IID-63len on the 
Ethernet interface would allow to make that 'hotspot' work.

Yes, as an observer here, don't mobile operators decide what features their phones should have? In the US, this seems very much the case. Allowing longer than /64 prefixes would only impact what is behind their own captive phones.

Even if this can’t be used today, OS limitations or whatever, it doesn’t have to create big impacts industry-wide, does it? The longer prefixes can be introduced gradually, only with the newer phones, allowing these new pones to create more sophisticated hotpots.

The bigger deal would be for cars, trucks, buses, given that these are being assigned /64 only. You need better than a flat network inside these vehicles. For instance, infotainment, diagnostics, and autonomous/assisted driving communications, should not coexist in one IP subnet. The autonomous/assisted driving comms will certainly be separated into separate layer 3 networks too.

Again, sooner or later, my bet is, we would be heading in this direction.

Bert