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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Tue, 24 November 2020 01:26 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3E9013A09FF for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:26:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -15.689
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-15.689 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.001, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, ENV_AND_HDR_SPF_MATCH=-0.5, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_REMOTE_IMAGE=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, USER_IN_DEF_DKIM_WL=-7.5, USER_IN_DEF_SPF_WL=-7.5] 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 kYKibQx0Yxlb for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:26:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::131]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7EF803A0CE5 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:26:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id w8so17713171ilg.12 for <>; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:26:14 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=9RnuQV38a+sM3iQ3sidbDuy7TjzmW6qKnp24Ls+T+cY=; b=kn0L2OdH7fggJAFmeQxO3Wi13zOuXzpxZGK1JfcEBnQZl5NOCeAU/XOY2Eg6ZK0swr orr+FYoEQoLNRGIFtn9HqBtG2wP1O6RP8s2TcHUFpG6d5LloRTCRlvvnrUnOgjZcWp9o zjz86h4abpscL0X1Jf9rJTk7h5HikdseW3fri00vpXudQKRE+Ozs/mmadUfi5F0sWEsL kDlr573R5LHbWyLgMNF3J9QGmVZ9SnTAKjBZZSYJY1CtKNi/HHKUDKz7dwM0uzjB8tJ1 POBxqsruCO8EZCOrOX0shvX1v7LMbPVwP/uhCp4jmXfA9RX6J/9Xq6etiiBa7dBSBBzD o+Lg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=9RnuQV38a+sM3iQ3sidbDuy7TjzmW6qKnp24Ls+T+cY=; b=px6N+mSqDv1EsJbznwIVGse91sHxAqbe1TL91u5q/ZjlP6xJ59Zk9dW7HKTLBy+vJR 3gzlqPU7JNpYg/p5KFU37QLV22LZ+3LKItlPjOfgZrP/08vys87wiVlUGb5L3CJbbeUz bo6sJBupQmzigqfR5q2egq+We0Q8+7abuCgoQeZZmHBMl2yEyn5Fq1n2NRw1VIOwxJA+ QEIWnT+1obLHBF3Yg/o6u6DMOx8Ha1EZTDlFLse6q0+WPgWt7JHgyLc1YB5SlhpYPNaz OnZWeEHoL/SXaEaGPBuZzfMC6+1DhFGL6HVXGKj6q3Ir9ttSlh9JYcBso1RV53VYPG0v kXrA==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM532/AnU+ryhvC1SsWH7MIHKE4UAwmw1dk7lKF2OVWc1jMoFH9kig tbAUsT/E8zVFxNlIg+D+rW7OubVnaW3DfuSeUxBmQg==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJyivtEeI5e/lG68D9kaq5Dcb8OkMoSvv2/hmCzLBOrsjFUPdcKLw84IT/67IjuGllS23hnMY0qMXasXyN9cYtY=
X-Received: by 2002:a92:cbcc:: with SMTP id s12mr2347652ilq.229.1606181173510; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:26:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 10:26:02 +0900
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
To: Gyan Mishra <>, Cameron Byrne <>
Cc: 6MAN <>, Alexandre Petrescu <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="0000000000004b583105b4d03235"
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: Tue, 24 Nov 2020 01:26:58 -0000

I don't think anyone ever said Android will not support DHCPv6 PD. That
said, implementing DHCPv6 PD on cellular is difficult for technical
reasons, including:

   - There is no DHCPv6 PD implementation in Android, so one would need to
   be written.
   - The natural place for such an implementation is in the IpClient code,
   which does not (yet?) run on cellular networks.

Something like the new RA option proposed in the 64share v2 thread (+Cameron
Byrne <>) - assuming it gains consensus - would be much
easier to implement.

As an alternative: it's possible to extend the Android telephony HAL to
allow the baseband to return a delegated prefix as well as the
directly-connected route. That way, if a modem vendor (e.g., Qualcomm,
Mediatek, ...) implements DHCPv6 PD in baseband-dependent code (which is
not part of the Android OS), it can simply pass up the prefix through the
HAL and the OS can use it.

As we know, DHCPv6 PD has been mentioned in 3GPP standards for several
releases. Are there any 3GPP specs on how prefix delegation should be used?
Are there any requirements that might simplify the implementation? For
example, a requirement that the delegated prefix may not change for the
lifetime of the session, and that its lifetime is infinite, would be
consistent with the 3GPP requirements around RAs, and would substantially
simplify implementation.

On Mon, Nov 23, 2020 at 4:44 PM Gyan Mishra <> wrote:

> How do we propose to solve this problem if operators don’t support PD even
> though the  3GPP standard has supported PD for over 10 years.
> Another twist to this puzzle is Android has 90% of the mobile handset
> marketplace worldwide and adamantly states they will NOT support DHCPv6 or
> PD.
> I researched Apple which has 10% of the market and they also do not
> support PD.
> Whats the solution now?
> --
> <>
> *Gyan Mishra*
> *Network Solutions A**rchitect *
> *M 301 502-134713101 Columbia Pike *Silver Spring, MD
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list