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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 22 June 2015 12:16 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 498CA1A03F9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 05:16:54 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.261
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.261 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
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 jEockLPXcHaO for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 53B0B1A03A0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 05:16:52 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 1A03EA3; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:16:50 +0200 (CEST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1434975410; bh=SB7GhuNlTiYMGQhUzxEZRj8b4K5cCMCx2/nZlOn13vU=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=L+NFZJSigibrzaOtaaXSGDpjGWwzCdzKrVpCxEzh1K3SFh7SKsdpDNFkAGViPTpti vrZlyocOd+xLsKBB3dg7bzMYEKTUWNPngOLx2RYGpDycn63FvEvSMCz86Aw0jR5r67 1DGr5EUeYyd6DblKCCRjYX8C4t/XzhzFoKYIFBCM=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EC94A2; Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:16:50 +0200 (CEST)
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 14:16:50 +0200 (CEST)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <5587EFDD.6030807@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506221415100.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <E1C235B5-1421-4DAF-A2F3-F963982233DF@apple.com> <5587EFDD.6030807@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/lxJcJzvRZoN5ytI-OjZoiudakgk>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - 64share
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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, 22 Jun 2015 12:16:54 -0000

On Mon, 22 Jun 2015, Alexandru Petrescu wrote:

> It is better to tell the operator to provide a /63 to smartphones (not a 
> /64), with DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation.  That will fix it.

DHCPv6-PD exists in recent 3GPP documents, but vendor implementation of 
this is not wide-spread. We do *not* want to gate IPv6 rollout in mobile 
networks on this functionality. Yes, we want it, but we can't wait for it.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se