Re: 64share v2

Brian E Carpenter <> Thu, 12 November 2020 02:36 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 174003A133D for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:23 -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 dKEP7e7ShgoS for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::429]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D375B3A133C for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:21 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g7so3139287pfc.2 for <>; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:21 -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=N9GiJwrmjhuRAI9ySqReiRzVBP3fWU9za1et/qxlYH0=; b=JxcNwNCMR1+D1vPLc/dyl2kJaMVNX3d2h7j3++CYZ4Av1qdaOCRceifbUlXXORyT9F YWybg26yVyUjUM4Rq9iBoI67Fh18EhIR3JsVSfa9u/bpOvO1yUibGQKq9Rayt+D80zza U/W/Lwba30BzCPck6UraVu4dJOV1q8uHMp/jAC1Zsq7BA0H0532bMit6JlYCHao3nFP4 ffb9YEO0cdpKIXdUjbxZAmUbIVWF4y1/JByxPYtYUhqelVlkuHGQUFmzWeex7dmMni6B W5OL4iuiqP00RjuCuJedywkfXFXTX/unz0xSoJh1ZKCn2sIgyLZjWwC1XP4dBnBHHD4O Rx4w==
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=N9GiJwrmjhuRAI9ySqReiRzVBP3fWU9za1et/qxlYH0=; b=JHdJSYoDNTX/yEg+N6Qh2gOBdaWFarCQXZGacPYIVfi1rcUO3ciNtDTkppiK6ln72I j6mcXCP2nZHmG8M466jI5LoNaAYzvzJNj1Cuif9+nfdBDpGwuc4NBxT0h9F9bngbdB87 pyziCVOVp27cpV/0zwZQo5EtcFtcEhnKt7dYGc8ZgFOrMIK1Ah7LsXwnjOMFwXIRKxxo cnUYiYt2cIMTuW+z+fNRjtYbXccAYvm9lMqFeDt+uT7uGNqg9ULzSeq873hAythLHGZh Hrqe1Aa5iPk9RCohesKqKQT1CMcceEMfh3EasUcrBU3RFgC2SPy149qbaVN7dWSlBh1E S/og==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM531d5W0eIgEirMtg1uWqEVs/Cs0diHee/Q0q4ERhjM1dw6Row7/Z ZgNrevSeFSGwy/UTHQcdAdlz8IlU+wlnoQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJzd2KrZjeQjQMv5BAeOWoCKsEXiccZkxcCfOCNYwkLPwMqSGPki1z13JQjLojo6X0q3L7e+gg==
X-Received: by 2002:aa7:9d81:0:b029:18b:4489:1e59 with SMTP id f1-20020aa79d810000b029018b44891e59mr26056631pfq.62.1605148571903; Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ([]) by with ESMTPSA id z11sm4360036pfk.52.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 11 Nov 2020 18:36:11 -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 15:36:08 +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: Thu, 12 Nov 2020 02:36:23 -0000

On 12-Nov-20 14:33, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2020 at 5:21 AM Brian E Carpenter < <>> wrote:
>     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.
> That's incorrect. 3GPP used RFC4861 as the IETF asked it to use it - to assign a /64 to the phone because a single /128 was not enough. The phone is free to use as many interface IDs within that /64 as it wants.

I can't find any words in RFC 4861 that describe an RA/PIO as assigning or delegating a prefix. A PIO announces that a prefix is in use on the link, as far as I understand it, and that is very different from assigning or delegating it.

Note, I'm not saying that this usage is harmful within a PDP context, but it is definitely not described by RFC 4861. It is described by RFC6459, but that's Informational.
> If you're referring to RFC 7278 (which is an IETF document, not a 3GPP one), then I don't see how that conflicts with the intention of RFC 4861. All interface IDs are still 64 bits. It's conceptually the same as saying that the /64 is actually on the phone's downlink interface, and the phone's uplink interface is unnumbered.

Sure, the sidestep occurs in Cameron's draft that extends the usage to prefixes shorter than /64. Again, I'm not saying that's harmful. But let's not pretend that it's normal usage of RFC 4861 that would work on an Ethernet.