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

Jan Zorz - Go6 <> Fri, 22 January 2021 12:19 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D2C4F3A1187 for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:19:15 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.361
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.361 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.262, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.b=Mi/msZlf; dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.b=jL1DONoe
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QyLboJjI2V2E for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:19:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ADH-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 814123A1186 for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 04:19:10 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (localhost []) by (Proxmox) with ESMTP id A2B77100F7A for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:19:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; h=cc :content-transfer-encoding:content-type:content-type:date:from :from:in-reply-to:message-id:mime-version:references:reply-to :subject:subject:to:to; s=mailgate; bh=ugwsKLv9Sr9Yb0tp5E5ffWgrH anEyVspcj/jwtDEjZ4=; b=Mi/msZlfcJ1hQYTsalUMgMh1KaGZ0Q8Af1JVKjHXd Sa4mH4E5GxeELEyxVMCpUBjOI+PyW9SPvKuJidqCpiJSKCRne5GIpgXKUIf5xuZ1 ghjQUQLrPC7y4hNLbB0yCo1SH9FPxdy+UVHgcckEysh2HcsQKtUSYRmUdUI4940j vHVaCUrGDUF0dAzsYsnPDuzHChkY8e3mc7sbfCLo4XhIJF4T0Ll+ZXCgBnQwJ/bq Ay9DWrz2xqUUTSG+e2GJvbY0UMVwY5l/XxTr2ol6MET98U4SCsagNkJ2vtlJEtwR 5TIqlsKvXMtoHfYxh3ysMiH7rPx/4DYaK+cUBGyzFCXAQ==
Received: from ( [IPv6:2001:67c:27e4::61]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Proxmox) with ESMTPS id 8709B100E3A for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:19:08 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Jans-Mac-mini.local (unknown [IPv6:2a00:ee2:e08:1b03::99]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "", Issuer "Actalis Client Authentication CA G2" (verified OK)) (Authenticated sender: jan) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 65A6320145 for <>; Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:19:08 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1611317948; bh=6FBY3qcaxEAObQyr+flozI3ztmk7CGqh8OYDhUbawLI=; h=Subject:To:References:From:Date:In-Reply-To:From; b=jL1DONoe/zLMNB3CDPjk2pVCN138e17XrSXWCtHGrULzngdKeY9zfi+JxmTC1mNCl oP2XNzpHoelfKq6Al5+IeQSyizb9CRFbSJ6TxNLzrCmK5QY3QGxqqawe1/5IRXQ9f6 kLpT5AM/Apo2lHNAb6pd6rKHnktmTpt355x14Jdo=
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
References: <> <> <>
From: Jan Zorz - Go6 <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 13:19:06 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.16; rv:85.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/85.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Language: en-US
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: Fri, 22 Jan 2021 12:19:16 -0000

On 20/01/2021 06:56, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> Le 19/01/2021 à 18:21, Jan Zorz - Go6 a écrit :
> [...]
>> I would say that for single phone - /64 is enough as that's a single 
>> host and I would not bother suggesting regulators to change that.
> A single phone with a single interface concerned about IPv6 maybe one 
> /64 is enough.
> But a single phone with multiple interfaces concerned about IPv6 (e.g.
> its cellular interface, its WiFi interface in AP mode and a virtual
> interface for an internal virtual machine) - do you still think one /64
> is enough?

If that's the case then a phone should send a DHCPv6-PD request and try 
to get a larger prefix delegated.

What I've see mobile phone vendors trying to pull is some sort of 
proxying that IPv6 prefix down to wifi interface and "share" it with 
wifi users connected to mobile AP. Not entirely how I would do it, but 
they rather chose this option other than sending an DHCPv6-PD request to 
get something larger than /64.

Cheers, Jan