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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 22/06/2015 22:50, Owen DeLong a écrit :
>>>> It is better to tell the operator to provide a /63 to
>>>> smartphones (not a /64), with DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation.  That
>>>> will fix it.
>>>
>>> No… If you’re going to go to PD, a /63 is stupid. Ideally, use a
>>> /48,
>>
>> Well, one cellular network operator has a /47 to 'share' with all
>> its customer UEs.  If that operator gave a /48 to an UE it could
>> satisfy only 2 such customers, not millions.
>
> That is a problem that is easy to solve with a simple interaction
> with their RIR.
>
> Give me a break.
>
> We should not be designing around providers that didn’t ask for
> enough IPv6 space for their deployments. We should educate those
> providers. IPv6 space is easy to get. A cellular network is an ISP
> almost by definition.
>
> There isn’t a single RIR on the planet that won’t grant you at least
> a /32 if you walk up and say “I’m an ISP, /32 please” in any credible
> way.
>
> (modulo payment of fees, etc., but you get the point)

So I looked at the RIR database.

The RIR already allocated a /19 to that operator.  But the operator 
fitted all its end users within a /47 (each getting a /64.)

The operator should fit all its end users within a /39 (not a /47), and 
each end user must get a /63.  At least.

Is RIR to be questioned when the operator delivers only /64s to end 
users?  Or the operator?

>>> but at least provide enough subnets to cover BT, USB, 2.4, and
>>> 5Ghz plus some headroom for future applications.
>>
>> I agree, headroom should be provided.
>>
>>>>> *) Internet Sharing on the Mac Today, regular internet
>>>>> sharing (from your ethernet to Wi-Fi for example) does not
>>>>> support IPv6 because of the limited use cases, and the lack
>>>>> of demand for it.
>>>>
>>>> If you get done the above then you get Internet Sharing on the
>>>> Mac Today as well, for free.
>>>
>>> Since iOS and OSX  are separate code bases, I’m not sure why you
>>> think that.
>>
>> Because the DHCPv6 Prefix Delegation is a userspace application
>> implementing a protocol - suffices it to compile on each of these
>> code bases.  It acts the same everywhere.
>
> Yes and no.
>
>> It's not a GUI, or some kernel module, or some AF-dependent
>> software.
>
> Well… It is actually AF-dependent. DHCPv6 will not work on IPv4 very
>  well at all.

Right.  I meant it's not an app supposed to work on both families.  It 
is pure v6.

[...]

Alex