Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy for bridging hotspots

Owen DeLong <> Fri, 26 June 2015 14:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 026611B2F57 for <>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:11:35 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.789
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.789 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_20=-0.001, DKIM_ADSP_ALL=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id JJ4-dT4L44v5 for <>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:11:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2620:0:930::200:2]) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id F1CA11B2F55 for <>; Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:11:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from (delong-dhcp3 []) (authenticated bits=0) by (8.14.5/8.14.2) with ESMTP id t5QEBUHB017977 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT); Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:11:30 -0700
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_E22B204A-B83F-4A5E-A271-594096401BEA"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2098\))
From: Owen DeLong <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 07:11:26 -0700
Message-Id: <>
References: <> <>
To: Mark ZZZ Smith <>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2098)
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy for bridging hotspots
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: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 14:11:35 -0000

> On Jun 25, 2015, at 23:48 , Mark ZZZ Smith < <>> wrote:
> From: Owen DeLong < <>>
> To: Gert Doering < <>> 
> Cc: <> 
> Sent: Friday, 26 June 2015, 5:24
> Subject: Re: [v6ops] Apple and IPv6, a few clarifications - ND proxy for bridging hotspots
> > For the typical driver who is already challenged pairing his mobile via
> > BT with his car's handsfree?  No go.  Do one thing, do it well, and NEVER
> > ask a car owner (or any normal Internet user) about technical decisions.
> We can agree to disagree. IMHO, this should be as simple as two settings.
> One on the phone: Provide Internet Access to Car: ON/OFF
> One in the car: Get internet access from: CAR <-> PHONE
> As to the typical driver being challenged pairing his mobile, frankly, I’m challenged
> with that on many occasions, not because I don’t know how to do it and not because
> I don’t understand what is involved or can’t follow directions, but because BlueTooth
> pairing implementation on most cars and most devices is a steaming pile of poorly
> written and even less well tested code that is fragile, buggy, and unreliable.
> Assuming that the underlying connectivity code works, the above two settings
> should not be difficult to implement correctly. They are far less complex than
> Bluetooth.
> / I think another thing to remember is that "enablement" can imply a default. For example, if my car comes with a SIM slot, and I choose to put one on in it, then I've implicitly chosen that the car should by default use the connectivity provided by its own 3/4G connectivity. I'm also have likely to have chosen the particular SIM and its associated usage plan based on my expected usage of the Internet by and possibly in the car. If the car also has a Wifi hotspot in it, I'll likely associate my phone with it once, so that from then on my phone will automatically use the car's connectivity every time I get in it, without any intervention on my part at all. That would be much more convenient than having to switch on and off hotspot support on my phone each and every time I get in the car - and it is likely people will sometimes forget, and then try to do that while they're driving, which will be as or more dangerous than sending text messages while driving.

I’m all for intelligent defaults in the settings in question, but I want the ability to make those choices without having to plug/unplug hardware.

Cars are mobile. Phones are mobile. Carrier policies less so. It may well be that I have different phones for different localities. When I’m home, I want to use the SIM I put in the car. When I drive somewhere else I may well want to switch off of using that SIM onto using a phone which I maintain for that locality. I don’t want to have to make hardware changes to facilitate this.

Until you can get carriers to offer reasonable roaming prices (along the lines of current T-Mo free international data or better), these kinds of needs will persist.

If you want examples of just how bad this is, single-SIM phones are the exception rather than the rule if you shop for a phone in Hong Kong. Most have dual-SIM capability and some even take 3 last I looked.

I don’t hold T-Mo up as any sort of shining example in general, but their pricing plan is the one and only one reason I’m using them for now. Other carriers should take note of this if they want my business.