Re: [v6ops] IETF109:: IPv6-only adoption challenges and standardization requirements

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Mon, 07 December 2020 21:25 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CCAD63A0B26 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:25:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.647
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.647 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FORGED_GMAIL_RCVD=1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NICE_REPLY_A=-0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=no autolearn_force=no
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 6F5npbKRS74l for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-smtp-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.13]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 435313A0B18 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 13:25:41 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide-sys.extra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0B7LPcBA009379; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:25:38 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id C5EE420B833; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:25:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr (muguet1-smtp-out.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.12]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id B863720B793; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:25:38 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [10.11.240.40] ([10.11.240.40]) by muguet1-sys.intra.cea.fr (8.14.7/8.14.7/CEAnet-Internet-out-4.0) with ESMTP id 0B7LPcEV004436; Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:25:38 +0100
To: Fernando Gont <fgont@si6networks.com>, v6ops@ietf.org
References: <DM6PR05MB634846E24826EF244B6AD4B8AEF50@DM6PR05MB6348.namprd05.prod.outlook.com> <38cb7e50-a44f-0fa8-dd70-8caa7846cb78@gmail.com> <0c7c442e-a128-2ed4-4ef0-b1a56411990c@si6networks.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <b78a9016-88bd-0e44-a70e-128292534b69@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2020 22:25:38 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.5.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <0c7c442e-a128-2ed4-4ef0-b1a56411990c@si6networks.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Language: fr
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Iv8pzURA9KzI6lEGYaaLhA0H6bw>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IETF109:: IPv6-only adoption challenges and standardization requirements
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2020 21:25:43 -0000


Le 30/11/2020 à 19:54, Fernando Gont a écrit :
> On 30/11/20 14:47, Alexandre Petrescu wrote:
> [....]
>>
>> I wanted to get confirmation that is the way that it is?
>>
>> UEs getting IPv6-only is a great step forward.
>>
>> But the /64 prefix for an UE might be a relatively limiting aspect if 
>> considering mobile hotspots.
> 
> That's already the case for e.g. many fixed-line (e.g. Cable) ISPs. 
> e.g., I get a /64 from my ISP.

I obtained a short list of operators (mobile and home) doing /64 where I 
live.

I am still digging for exceptional cases that might do shorter-than-64 
and I was hoping this one could be the case.

Another thing I look at operators is whether IPv6 is carried in IPv4 
(e.g. GTP is IPv6 in UDP IPv4) or is IPv6 on bare metal.

I was hoping this operator here might do GTP IPv6 in UDP in IPv6.

But probably this slot of discussion expired.  I will ask later.

Alex

> 
> Thanks,