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

Erik Kline <ek@google.com> Wed, 24 June 2015 08:57 UTC

Return-Path: <ek@google.com>
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 581841B3248 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:59 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.389
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.389 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 GciVY6cD56GE for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wi0-x22c.google.com (mail-wi0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c05::22c]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4AA141B320A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:58 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wiga1 with SMTP id a1so128997496wig.0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=fS2Pzh1khSWlx4jT7fEEfVLTbFKmYSZ8Cm36zHHk0Po=; b=eQuqGKF1GmIX80RElTDFHUflLA+B50vCwvKtjauB//wsoUk3AUflXD5QkRRJC6Bvx0 MNaptcG0pqkbB+xg7b3Q1TpH/MTKUR/CZ/6F7gJQ7ZrVmQB/GhesKaoD2tclViJm4R4w XPsv/y1nMsyiAOkbZgjdUtutpQTvir8xqXDBouWXVJuvnUupagMrowqowTKgHLXfEHsk MWu4aF/sUZnzP5RvK2fwyXCPJGL/6Iy/Q8KzO7wTalroDt9qC37TZz2rSMghVP4wZS7h xAjKFdZqayiiU/MTjKfQr79R+pEK2tOJGcM5GhEOqrRKCkMuIfmUKvWhBzMf1xnHqVIA V4Qg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=fS2Pzh1khSWlx4jT7fEEfVLTbFKmYSZ8Cm36zHHk0Po=; b=CeEo6aecaY5bJkfw7YVef8shh8roF6T92UJDb6WFw9BobfVpGK+WeMLNhuJBnjTVyn 3CjQRduGbYhglvjlvsbOsF7S69SDtk1OLIE9Nc/OSePn7NIHF5cEtaI6mccl+p7Ps3av 4AX69gCkFBgifgUjOcqd09svcYCGjjDQVFEn+mBWw3pFV+FvHgDAJwe1BuCXer4K+8zN CZypV+1Qvj3EzKa3gtWpBKXwe84MWmp+bpttKrtjeKEM5hI+K3DMkvf3kfsZFrY5xnnc D17ZVuK4VQOXXT4oqxWu3Ky0U8xyNywFZwykUxjQ+nXrTBwm5ifsJkPzY1Hl5lBjFR1J LZiw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnVS+Nr3LGp0MHuBbvi19d+xHfGXl3dtGAv4ZIh+IvUwwFX68eGS0RGZo3/fu/yrgY12V8t
X-Received: by 10.194.175.65 with SMTP id by1mr8161010wjc.152.1435136277005; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:57 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.138.203 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 01:57:37 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506221415100.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <E1C235B5-1421-4DAF-A2F3-F963982233DF@apple.com> <5587EFDD.6030807@gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1506221415100.9487@uplift.swm.pp.se>
From: Erik Kline <ek@google.com>
Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 17:57:37 +0900
Message-ID: <CAAedzxo7Cqxwrp_zViDhOhWc+dtcy9M9=a-FjW7M8APNx7VUQA@mail.gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/yRv_U7qOqUjZMFlD-lG5UaKhUlg>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <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: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:57:59 -0000

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 9:16 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> 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.

(off-topic: So, are you saying that DT is most definitely not blocked
on DHCPv6-PD as far as enabling IPv6 on LTE is concerned?)