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

"Manfredi (US), Albert E" <> Mon, 23 November 2020 22:18 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 21B053A1380; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:18:29 -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_H4=-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 (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CKBxdqueAlei; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:18:27 -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 BB3343A137E; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:18:26 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/DOWNSTREAM_MBSOUT) with SMTP id 0ANMINrm020526; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:18:24 -0500
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=boeing-s1912; t=1606169904; bh=VQov/uJaXnPtPsXulpc5g6ddQezILxwyHokAVbZeOI8=; h=From:To:Subject:Date:References:In-Reply-To:From; b=q36Kywn2vDYLR5ecKeiNX3ic7KumrZxQDJ6Q7LfSXzoLIQVTTG200QRrs1Y1b/oaY pIbwEg/AUGzMLIMpgzFWUWM9oIMFcG0xkEa1a3uvW60XzL3XDp9v17gw8mnmIIK8YO SAwo5ycV1dOxGQ1BlyQwq5L773K5kjB4Try0J+dOFD0rDQXHt74/VtS/kiu0B0ne/H PWiJzS3cN8KLGRNmCC8yvDL62p60QIIoU+1k4LtLQGRv0tZFYtEoz8NvkGmMGlpZ+7 cRJjj3nXloUKyEgJP4sykZaCxchRFUvY97HNh/rZguV8Spiqx7W/HwVchBropDjLT8 xOmsmVyEO+Ckg==
Received: from ( []) by (8.15.2/8.15.2/8.15.2/UPSTREAM_MBSOUT) with ESMTPS id 0ANMIL5h020500 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 bits=256 verify=OK); Mon, 23 Nov 2020 17:18:21 -0500
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (version=TLS1_2, cipher=TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_CBC_SHA384) id 15.1.2044.4; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:18:20 -0800
Received: from ([fe80::c57c:39bc:4c0a:384b]) by ([fe80::c57c:39bc:4c0a:384b%4]) with mapi id 15.01.2044.004; Mon, 23 Nov 2020 14:18:20 -0800
From: "Manfredi (US), Albert E" <>
To: Gyan Mishra <>, 6MAN <>, IPv6 Operations <>
Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Thread-Topic: [EXTERNAL] How do you solve 3GPP issue if neither operator nor handset supports PD?
Thread-Index: AQHWwWyZML0ak3gy8U6YYdoceleq4anWSA/A
Date: Mon, 23 Nov 2020 22:18:20 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
x-tm-snts-smtp: 32BAC4654383A4DF58194AD6082B0F6D1ADFC2A4C3D13206D5012C9CA2DE344F2000:8
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
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 22:18:29 -0000

From: ipv6 <> On Behalf Of Gyan Mishra

> 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.

Maybe I've missed this detail in the thread. Are you saying that Android would be happy to tether downstream devices will a longer prefix, and support SLAAC with different length IIDs, but not happy to accept shorter prefixes from upstream? Or is this your suggestion, which assumes that Android will forever oppose receiving anything other than /64s?

Seems to me that accepting /56 or /48s should be an easier upgrade, and create a lot less commotion in the IETF, at this time.