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

Yucel Guven <> Thu, 21 January 2021 12:43 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6A4373A09EA for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:43:56 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.098
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.098 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, 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 qAGuEhcwMgrG for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::c2c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B5A073A09E9 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:43:54 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id i18so452592ooh.5 for <>; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:43:54 -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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BVZ31WjE5WI5prn7MUWhGeLFj8/LqVG3R9qUqMGHIVU=; b=OoK2H15Oc2ilBM3mMmgAviKU9r2Jq5HRPL+S0dG7fz7ired8IR8pXcCLPDB7wQXFmL Ae+1zKyDFsfnxgGOXg9N1qEa5PA3qN6xysAyuGcgQ7v7LWxg4zgSyzlcLmFV2Y4UigcS ldQAGyX2833gLSFmbTsDTrcJyj2Bs6+ISwM9jUnrJUy6/nWbhDc41L3S4g0hfUN2Ryc9 Z/I4D5ajB3PLbcGDy+p8XFrPO1caRPE9ImVzuvIA4VTqxhc+BQ3BR1hBfU209vScQPLu arDmH31L+s9qZUhFUdrMFo2sUspA5eZx0DvpRJgWxdLk74k5G6T1H/kcPAqrZg2aWItI Dc7Q==
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=BVZ31WjE5WI5prn7MUWhGeLFj8/LqVG3R9qUqMGHIVU=; b=KLLoQ7ylOqBTEcp30bL/3Pxk0LqhFnZ7/+eFmmYEHp4vh4tOz7Dr4D1d871v4XuGd8 0LqYc5eaZ5FxDaDCl9Ma0PBEmAGz0h3DQJaGPgRn4PhZCeHCgcn58rixmlHUIldJzShv CD65ZxD3OcGBGZpNGAEoOFo1Iad9ADutTXViCr0NGd7tdDGrxFMJtcL925A13nBoniWd uUBGeXbFPMwTPwVFqSL7mgxCfW1XEK2ol53jlSJnVW8xso2VPjF6ERLZ4Fq39SimQ/JF N70b5zbF2tRoRagVnMztvuSjAcFzSG3mb5EBRvhnbMk0IZpb8PA5Lpz0DdCiW/a57ymh zcjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM530edWpTJeDU+Ij9fTclKSNGb0rnxEJ9C9l5bOMMMHV8Yr31BVi3 lB0qWQBlnzmbasw1friw/Aoo+4LhqMrFtagUV9YcIXaym+gNAQ==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxTNhX2iDkXFQ1AKovWs3vjqfy6cr/VIyOei7mCJNkJsTlHLCxbVJdWK/1WPb9ARXYZWQ2xdrIFtctD/kZxR3U=
X-Received: by 2002:a4a:9873:: with SMTP id z48mr9393204ooi.44.1611233033853; Thu, 21 Jan 2021 04:43:53 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Yucel Guven <>
Date: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 15:45:17 +0300
Message-ID: <>
Subject: Re: Informed regulator about the shorter-than-64 necessity on 3G/4G/5G
To: Simon Hobson <>
Cc: IPv6 <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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: Thu, 21 Jan 2021 12:43:56 -0000

It can not be the provider's business to put connection restrictions
AFTER subscribers paid for X GB connection. Subscribers share it or
not, it's their choice.
This situation also sheds some light on why cellular providers do not
like/want 'tethering'.

If in the future, cellular providers restricts tethering/sharing/etc.,
then I think 'portion' of responsibility will also be on shoulders of
RFC writers
since many parts of the operating software is written with respect to RFCs,
and this is NOT a BUSINESS but rather it's a technical communication
protocol subject.


On Thu, Jan 21, 2021 at 12:53 PM Simon Hobson <> wrote:
> Yucel Guven <> wrote:
> > > "There is too big a power differential between the cellular user that want to be able to have multiple subnets and the telcos for free market economics to work."
> >
> > More explicitly?  Do you mean that cellular operators 'do not want you share your internet connection'  for free market economics to work?
> There is that. My "gut feeling" from observation is that cellular operators don't (or didn't) want users to be sharing the connection - that means you are not paying them a separate fee for each device that's using bandwidth. I can't speak for the US market, but here in the UK it does seem that the attitude has changed over the years - possibly an acceptance that the worms are well clear of the can and aren't going back in.
> And even though we have (I believe) a significantly more competitive market over here, there is still the situation that all the operators offer a similar  or even identical service regarding technical things like this - so the user has no "free market power" to move to an operator that does offer a better service. Until one operator breaks ranks, then as a group they hold ALL the power regarding technical operations - the user has one simple choice, take it or leave it. And as things stand, there doesn't seem to be any incentive for any operator to break ranks.
> Simon
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
> Administrative Requests:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------