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

Alexandre Petrescu <> Mon, 23 November 2020 18:12 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BBE2E3A05F8; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:12:35 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 3.154
X-Spam-Level: ***
X-Spam-Status: No, score=3.154 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=1.2, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H4=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.972] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 2mgoxXr5lTwx; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 326B63A0596; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 10:12:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0ANICW7K017969; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:12:32 +0100
Received: from (localhost []) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id EDE78208FE8; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:12:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9F0208F99; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:12:31 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [] ([]) by (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0ANICVJW030728; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:12:31 +0100
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>, Gyan Mishra <>
Cc: 6MAN <>, IPv6 Operations <>
References: <> <>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 19:12:31 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
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, 23 Nov 2020 18:12:36 -0000

Le 23/11/2020 à 13:24, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> On Mon, 23 Nov 2020, 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?
> The obvious use-case for PD is the "LTE router" fixed-wireless 
> use-case. There the problem of getting a DHCPv6-PD client into the
> UE isn't the same as on handsets. A lot of those platforms already 
> support DHCPv6-PD for their wired versions (some have both LTE and 
> wired WAN).
> So this brings us back to the mobile core. Why doesn't this today, 8 
> years after DHCPv6-PD was introduced in 3GPP standards, still not 
> support PD?
> I don't know but I know staff at operators who claim to have tried 
> (more than 5 years ago). I do not know why their efforts failed. 
> Perhaps the mobile core vendors successfully managed to divide the 
> customer base so there was no critical mass. I can only speculate.

> I just find it weird that there are now demands to change 
> *everything* downstream from the 3GPP bearer to handle smaller 
> subnets instead of enabling PD in mobile core.

It is an interesting note.  Put that way indeed it looks weird.

Indeed a variable length plen in SLAAC with a non 64bit IID would be
changes downstream rather than upstream.  I can say however that such a
change could also accommodate the upstream; if the RA from PGW ('P'
Gateway in 3GPP network) contained a /56, and if we didnt want to create
a new option in RA, then it would be necessary to use an IID of length
72.  At which point operators might complain about a 'race to the up' if
I can say so.

It might be that after many efforts, discussion, software written,
trials, some people tend to conclude that changes in the 3GPP iface to
mobile are hardly feasible with respect to that /64.  Weird it is, I agree.