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

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Jan 2021 09:44:26 +0100

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

I do not know.

There is a problem when all operators deliver only /64s.  The problem is
for mobile hotspots, vehicular networks, and probably others, who need
more than just a single /64.

In implementation, DHCPv6-PD has itself some problems on smartphones,
regardless of using /64s or other plens.  That DHCPv6 problem is at the
modem manufacturers who block DHCPv6.  A telecom operator might or
rather might not be able to work towards solving it at the modem
manufacturer.

A regulator might work with mobile telecom operator towards assigning
more than a single /64 to end users.

> 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.

I can see such differential as between large and small dented wheels,
but I dont understand quite what do you mean?  Do you think there are
too few users in need of multiple subnets for make a market uptake?

For my side I can cite figures of the autonomous connected automobiles
market poised to grow to billions of dollars capitalization in the next
few years.

Alex

> 
>> Thanks, -- Fernando Gont SI6 Networks e-mail: [email-masked]
>> PGP Fingerprint: 6666 31C6 D484 63B2 8FB1 E3C4 AE25 0D55 1D4E 7492
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>
>> 
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
>> [email-masked] Administrative Requests: 
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 
>> --------------------------------------------------------------------
>