Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?

Philip Homburg <> Mon, 30 November 2020 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D2573A0B76 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:11:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.918
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.918 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_NONE=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sVjTu9yJnJ-J for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:11:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C12363A0B71 for <>; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 06:11:44 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost [::ffff:]) by with esmtp (TLS version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305) (Smail #157) id m1kjjtu-0000ICC; Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:11:34 +0100
Message-Id: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
From: Philip Homburg <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Fri, 27 Nov 2020 18:51:30 +0100 ." <>
Date: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 15:11:31 +0100
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: Mon, 30 Nov 2020 14:11:47 -0000

>For the case you cite IPv4 NAT would work equally well.

You keep bringing that up. IPv4 NAT doesn't work very well if you can't get
IPv4 addresses for your servers.

In addition, NAT CGN boxes are more expensive than IPv6 routing.

> This started with a discussion how to support multiple links (i.e.
> more than a single /64).  We are the IETF and have a responsibility
> to solve the general problem.  A site with an arbitrary topology.
> Can you now please describe your solution?

For site with arbitrary topology, the solution is simple:
- for inter-site prefix delegation use DHCPv6 PD, or (if we get agreement on it)
  PD using RA.
- intra-site use homenet.

Personally, I'd like to see a good solution for an intra-site tree topology
where parties don't trust each other.

But homenet seems to have sacraficed practical security to support arbitrary
topologies. And that seems to be your focus as well.