Re: 64share v2

Brian E Carpenter <> Wed, 11 November 2020 20:21 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B9AD73A106D for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:21:31 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.1
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.1 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id bZdXxSw41Z09 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::431]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A34B03A106C for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g7so2371055pfc.2 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:21:30 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Botrovb5U9Lj/YCsCacqov8rWQmshgygc3Vx3+hDihs=; b=BDn0INO88FLT0PrXPjhTUbb7zy3xUl7mUo+OiDcYL+6A/9wgVKGXaUmaZD1ym0y28U imyPQbqh2+NPzBDopxh8UUXc70+Z9YhZdK/Aht2YwCvcj4AHzIClNkl99iDLIqXy7naU Ye/18DqIeX0/fTYCV6ZAZzfDlhiZ0thtku4JKJDLKc52w7qR2RXU3bWi78Ongq0dYo3h 6HgOqQtmpyqnccLjAhAJrqxjj2HvPSnikyk7U+KgvToHZmLM6wNwqWuBUCOX6G7rGsz9 j7VCvbvrfyRkBski2vEtkD5oZfakqB+r/spzWdkDeeP2RaBvzntTddTB3QRM/Sr8HAEa ALMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Botrovb5U9Lj/YCsCacqov8rWQmshgygc3Vx3+hDihs=; b=Luw7rluLlLZ7tBQ0rYwrZH7kqULyj2skcHHsAZ+aWnuVHWUIAQWsj33Ia/zC0cDFYM sodpG10ytQ2bwa9ugev0yu3Z5VayH5xJRJi0nogCmsZQjp/+CxwUMPblBO+F8aGoGirb 6UOvY1HpdriK/IEf/IhKhty6quviYysV/9/YUjVC2hBKDrxERRmBj3ETLN1Sd3e4xeGf hzNNAY1QBeI/JmbUqigaN1it2FidJX4E224eSMxt3JCoc202pXzUwwOzM98KcJle8tv/ 8isxgkl1ezptnPTqD2wiqsk6DiT4c1gg+/n0JF+Nzyf9cWNUaPqyK7r54WjtfmO9Hokq ZmHA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530uHXQ+zW5d1mOSbKu/JwRZsqZXYDlFiLbA74AXyHzHbuS08sWe s41Dl3SqzWR++HvN6szKc4n65JRixWKD0A==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxiYrMyQ+HezXJ2lrHtAToGxu+L/8uBeGBMgcMv94LnzAPD0DBS4g8STn827MXAVqUPdW+Cig==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:df0a:: with SMTP id gp10mr5374594pjb.36.1605126089833; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:21:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id i29sm3504573pgb.10.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 12:21:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Cc: Ca By <>, 6man <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 09:21:27 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 20:21:32 -0000

On 11-Nov-20 22:31, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 9:01 AM Brian E Carpenter < <>> wrote:
>        This memo requests the 3GPP to change this requirement to allow any
>        prefix size less than or equal to 64 be advertised by the 3GPP
>        gateway RA. It also, for this purpose only, overrides the implication
>        of [RFC 4291] and [RFC 4861] that subnet prefixes in RAs are
>        always /64.
> I think that if we want to gain consensus on this document, we should avoid overriding/updating/touching RFC 4291.

I disagree. The reality is that 3GPP has already overridden the intention
of RFC4861 by misusing an RA/PIO as a prefix delegation mechanism. That's
a clever trick, but it is a trick, and Cameron's proposal simply extends
that trick a bit.

> Fortunately I don't think we need to. We can simply do as Ole suggested and have the RA contain both the /64 PIO and a new option conveying the delegated prefix. 

You said a bad word: "new option". We should avoid that if possible.

> We need to continue to maintain the /64 PIO anyway. If we don't, otherwise existing devices won't get IPv6 connectivity, since they know that a PIO with a /60 isn't valid for autoconf (even if A=1), because for global space, IIDs are always 64 bits long.

Hmm. I'd like to know whether that's an experimental or theoretical observation.