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

Mikael Abrahamsson <> Mon, 23 November 2020 12:24 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 603D23A09E9; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:24:48 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.219
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.219 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Q2a6Aao9PaUh; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:24:46 -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 669573A09E5; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 04:24:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by (Postfix, from userid 501) id C2547B3; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:24:43 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple;; s=mail; t=1606134283; bh=nhc7tYUPtfukyW2dL9N2St8V04GQwkiVQz1LFVeCfc8=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=yxD2v9b5H0Jsl53Gzrs+JZNNVamHl2J0b1iurkXbPZKipZtCn/PJmqnKXDnSx8pbc QEnz10xANFIN1bh/1M7kvuAEgSclVdVkXAtrDLuS5+YUEusQNiKm3PAEAxUEgJiuYU ZJOUJtM0T86sPHh5/ROzVYcPLP2Qm1hsd980lsTc=
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id BE7E7B0; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:24:43 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 13:24:43 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
To: Gyan Mishra <>
cc: 6MAN <>, IPv6 Operations <>, "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
In-Reply-To: <>
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (DEB 67 2015-01-07)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; BOUNDARY="-137064504-1662771661-1606134283=:26384"
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 12:24:48 -0000

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.

Mikael Abrahamsson    email: