Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - timeline

otroan@employees.org Thu, 09 March 2017 08:18 UTC

Return-Path: <otroan@employees.org>
X-Original-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BA4931204D9 for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:18:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.001
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.001 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (1024-bit key) header.d=employees.org; domainkeys=pass (1024-bit key) header.from=otroan@employees.org header.d=employees.org
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id IgYYgSMetsqY for <ipv6@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from esa01.kjsl.com (esa01.kjsl.com [IPv6:2607:7c80:54:3::87]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8ADD9129480 for <ipv6@ietf.org>; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:18:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cowbell.employees.org ([198.137.202.74]) by esa01.kjsl.com with ESMTP; 09 Mar 2017 08:18:37 +0000
Received: from cowbell.employees.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C0267D788D; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:18:36 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; s=selector1; bh=K8ZeFYOMXPAu2kPxSs3WhYxyCHs=; b= qTfkh7RIAWki9hksTntWIjehaOhzuVrLidNdCexBXxjv3AIYmO7eGMHIIZAXB5wl f3pXWcLsZQMK4UceMJRrgeais6PJZuYCO6JA+g8CLtbqz5TGYhDicEIkI9ZFrqs6 e3sTpHBIdozNYVOU+nOeZyl0VeMxVRFYxCRh0SAda8I=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=employees.org; h=from :message-id:content-type:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to :cc:to:references; q=dns; s=selector1; b=U9nr/HUYq5U+vqrXfnt00em tumQbaKPevnh1KVighDgOCsO4BqfRH4eaz4FJl4P4Z3gNJZixRujXrJ4/FHMj/Sh S7KCEF9JuSVC1CLRs7mCHxicvu+5qXOLFcac47yJy+Q+2YGnY+nS+GO2HInmbh3k hCp573/IHfoTcj2tj43E=
Received: from h.hanazo.no (219.103.92.62.static.cust.telenor.com [62.92.103.219]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) (Authenticated sender: otroan) by cowbell.employees.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 88C58D788B; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 00:18:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [IPv6:::1] (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by h.hanazo.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8C3C999CC966; Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:18:34 +0100 (CET)
From: otroan@employees.org
Message-Id: <420E5EB5-2FD8-4CF6-B067-5C51501911CE@employees.org>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="Apple-Mail=_7A23F8F7-2886-44CE-BAA5-DAF1060AE679"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha512
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.2 \(3259\))
Subject: Re: [v6ops] A proposal for draft-ietf-6man-rfc4291bis-07 - timeline
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2017 09:18:34 +0100
In-Reply-To: <3397bed0-1ca8-7b62-8215-7561883de4a9@gmail.com>
To: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
References: <CAN-Dau17q_BrUuzfvB1mLDt6p5UxYikphWaHpa8VQ2L-3kx-DA@mail.gmail.com> <5B4AFF50-8CA9-4134-8CE2-A383DB5F8BF5@google.com> <m1ckxfo-0000IMC@stereo.hq.phicoh.net> <225F639E-27C1-4408-BC2B-26500929049B@google.com> <CAOSSMjUR203+hYFBrFBrj9Xkjux3o7fYNd4y9kNyxwpLxF11ew@mail.gmail.com> <6D825351-7F43-4540-89AB-48DC2B5E92E3@google.com> <CAOSSMjUP6m-L1iNhE=BxHW+7hvt4YsZgxxtVn+qmgEVS9HeStA@mail.gmail.com> <3EC22050-D159-488D-A354-E46F04764E25@google.com> <CAOSSMjW_fPz3RdPyK=e-EyvyW4GawFAr3zcGLkBzDcR8Ws2MUw@mail.gmail.com> <90292C5E-013D-4B7C-B496-8A88C7285CD7@google.com> <CAOSSMjXf1ah6nrAorf+mpnOxXBpHg6difgCo4mQ6rPVZoU8CSw@mail.gmail.com> <7FAD8D2B-B50E-44C5-AAA3-0C91621D9D54@google.com> <CAOSSMjX4Rq969cTuAU+sqWmW7Rh2-nxjd1vpSkeAevVZTed1HA@mail.gmail.com> <ED8E5513-A522-4D37-A0A2-0960CF3E5394@google.com> <36251EE1-309C-44B5-BEAE-591889492547@employees.org> <9B6D49C1-D793-465B-A395-28147BD22FAC@google.com> <CAOSSMjUy2=yguYh6iMmd6O6d91WrdNEFgo9Gn+4urVp33vug2Q@mail.gmail.com> <3397bed0-1ca8-7b62-8215-7561883de4a9@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3259)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ipv6/vGmMHp5bG9e8tlGSJkrf6DNhInM>
Cc: 6man WG <ipv6@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ipv6@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
Precedence: list
List-Id: "IPv6 Maintenance Working Group \(6man\)" <ipv6.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ipv6/>
List-Post: <mailto:ipv6@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6>, <mailto:ipv6-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 09 Mar 2017 08:18:38 -0000

Alex,


[...]

> Retrospectively:
> 
> At time of that discussion, year 2004, there was no IPv6 on cellular
> links, [I-D]. Since then 3GPP got many recommendations from IETF about
> how to run IPv6. The result is 3GPP User Equipment links only support a
> single 64 today.
> 
> My supposition, and many indications converge, is that the 64
> recommendation from the IPv6 Addressing Architecture RFC led to this
> undesirable situation of a single 64 for an UE.

That is one speculation. You may reconstruct history differently:
If it wasn't for RFC6177/RFC3177 combined with the 64-bit boundary (and SLAAC), what you would have had on a UE would be a single IPv6 address.

Cheers,
Ole