Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - 64share

Owen DeLong <> Mon, 22 June 2015 17:06 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 032551B307D for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:06:34 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.589
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.589 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id QzPJTuTHCtZc for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C2501A1C03 for <>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:06:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [IPv6:2620::930:0:ae87:a3ff:fe29:7192] ([IPv6:2620:0:930:0:ae87:a3ff:fe29:7192]) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.4/8.14.2) with ESMTP id t5MH6N4P002092 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:06:24 -0700
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Owen DeLong <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:06:23 -0700
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
To: "Hemant Singh (shemant)" <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
X-Greylist: Sender succeeded SMTP AUTH, not delayed by milter-greylist-4.2.3 ( [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]); Mon, 22 Jun 2015 10:06:24 -0700 (PDT)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - 64share
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 17:06:34 -0000

> On Jun 22, 2015, at 07:47 , Hemant Singh (shemant) <> wrote:
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ross Chandler [] 
> Sent: Monday, June 22, 2015 10:28 AM
> To: Hemant Singh (shemant)
> Cc: Mikael Abrahamsson;
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - 64share
>> Are you arguing for DHCPv6-PD prior to the stopgap of L2 bridging and 64share? I’ve seen this implemented in UEs.
> It's up to the provider to deploy what they choose to deploy.   I am only discussing pitfalls with each tech being considered for deployment.  I do have a preference for DHCPv6 PD and routing.  The reason is DHCPv6 PD and IPv6 CE router can support all of wifi, Bluetooth, etc.  Additionally, devices such as Apple TV in the home can be assigned ULAs which the router on the phone will never forward to the WAN - thus no video from the home leaks to the cellular network.  I will never consider a technology that leaks a home's  TV video to the cellular network.  

Why not? I’m pretty annoyed that I have to use the HTTP interface and wifi hotspot on my phone rather than the iOS App to pull video off of my TiVO when I’m not home.

Mostly this is because TiVO has their head up their ass about thinking:

	1.	All homes have one and only one broadcast domain.
	2.	TiVO won’t use the cellular interface on an iOS device. (It will connect over wifi just fine).

Sometimes I use one iOS device in hotspot mode to watch video on another which thinks it’s on wifi but is actually using the cellular network from the first iOS device.

All of these limitations on how I use the cellular bandwidth I pay for are:
	1)	Silly
	2)	Annoying
	3)	Unnecessary