Re: 64share v2

Brian E Carpenter <> Tue, 10 November 2020 21:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4243A3A107D for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:49:08 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.099
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.099 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, NICE_REPLY_A=-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 VuLy5DIQZJ5I for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::433]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CE9013A1053 for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:49:06 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id g7so108621pfc.2 for <>; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:49:06 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=pRnOQPJy/bYx/ttUxpMRIc18e/D1AIAAdr37s1gs+HA=; b=gHd8YUCGq8wuCb5TOV+MTLfmAYjaqDM3+yyc8UGeidhKzpNsQXcnTS2FAlZzShhQgD zY4QjUj13OUYGl1qtcvG0KmoRG58/XGmsj5oSxs7EfSr3SALtWZpDSAGgP+MQEYjkmDw FGc1GVOp8QqUaoXxALoHUdPZIAVhWDXBj6uPvaZZVhPl8Krhe8TFZ+5L5mmFiQ6kbgXW UJ3/tDHhGnAfiNLJKM3vC7wSkxE6YtgsnwS4sWvZuJL3R/SzBg3LP2/MX1dvPJ0J/5x9 MnCcYY7onhQ0ZLj6FusAoC3WADPCTjVWKD9KSsfMwlcjP7RSbXn9nzRZPhpGGOuK18Np 0GfQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-language :content-transfer-encoding; bh=pRnOQPJy/bYx/ttUxpMRIc18e/D1AIAAdr37s1gs+HA=; b=kZbakn1WMh7L+Ph/u6JRMxGzB6faIZnlmHnwHei+MJ7fU9uCyqVRnbsxA9cnHeRtoo 9abwcJbuKSXS2ucDTi38a8Z3YPyYbkQxEs+TSf5YIHBYI2TaOnGCTYQ+XSCgRZ0P8FJX 6CozBBNleg8ocbHIFgHs7Vut5U3km3ZcVZloLhl1xv25pzWMENf0QcI8DdJfaaTE+Oiv mzaCan5JF+e07sD/opsCVe3n88qdF4q9u+NXPYbvO6mtmgDQ/bOkZokZF4IXRmtF8Fni ELzeQySO3eyCPVvHMu4tz421e51LAD3RFaKCc2xFgZBgTLcDfWMY/d/AUZDK2bRYOAMH oZgw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM5335CnZJ0NlGeIxrstVBbPIfDtXCyh9ir/gYaCZBZV/FYvsZYWC5 a8z+wdRfRWAaArONkpS6j0g/gRJDP4hjVw==
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwRtgZalHIzuYzEsry5CjcvZLGWNx/1bzQIMZWus78I1zDvkClY1hiG4QSzguNep2KRv72GFw==
X-Received: by 2002:a17:90a:b10a:: with SMTP id z10mr218206pjq.108.1605044945451; Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:49:05 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] ( []) by with ESMTPSA id 3sm104445pfv.92.2020. (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-ECDSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 10 Nov 2020 13:49:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: 64share v2
To: Ca By <>, 6man <>
References: <>
From: Brian E Carpenter <>
Message-ID: <>
Date: Wed, 11 Nov 2020 10:49:01 +1300
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.9.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: Tue, 10 Nov 2020 21:49:08 -0000

On 10-Nov-20 21:10, Ca By wrote:
> Folks,
> In an effort to progress the conversation, i created a simple and rough pre-00 i-d (as ietf is not accepting submissions now) for your review and comment

I'm having difficulty reconciling that with what I read at:

If that email is correct, the 3GPP model is tightly bound to
the /64 boundary and to the notion of giving a single address
and predefined Interface ID to the UE. Also, since /64
is still fixed by the addressing architecture, and RA PIOs
are constrained by that architecture, I don't understand how
a UE can be "given a prefix such as a /56 using RA".

Perhaps someone familiar with 3GPP internals, e.g. the authors
of RFC6459, can comment?