Re: [v6ops] reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Thu, Sep 21, 2017 at 10:40:17AM -0300, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> I also see a valid case for having 2 APNs. 1) for LTE broadband routers that require more than a /64 (and thus DHCPv6-PD), and 2) for the rest that are regular UEs and only require a /64 (64share for the tethering)

The claim that you need multiple APNs for that is not logical.

The basic function "assign a /64 for each PDP" is 3GPP standard, any APN
needs to do that (and that's the /64 you use for 64share).

The extra function "DHCPv6-PD" is conceptually totally independent - you
need an IPv6 capable link, nothing else, and whether or not a /64 has been
assigned is not relevant for PD.  

Now, if a given *vendor* can only turn on one or the other on their gear 
is an implementation choice, and that REALLY doesn't belong here - if at
all, it's a 3GPP standardization topic ("if you add DHCPv6PD, you MUST
continue to provide a /64 for each subscriber").

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279