Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed? We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it is /64 or /128. In RFC 3177, it says: 3. Address Delegation Recommendations The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary between the public and the private topology to follow those general rules: - /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers. - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design. - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting. Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am wondering if this rule is follwed. Cheers -- Ricardo Ferreira
Good day, On 22 Jul 2016, at 10:54, Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed?
I am not, but I can answer from the consumer's point of view:
Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am wondering if this rule is follwed.
Tethering. With best regards, Mikhail.
Ricardo, I know from previous discussions on this list that Android phones are looking for DHCPD leases and not /128's or /64's. From what I remember this is due to the current requirement for multiple ipv6 subnets for various applications (vpns among others) to function correctly. As a result Google has disabled Android from receiving a DHCP lease as it wasn't long enough. if you look back about 6 months there is probably 100+ posts on the subject. All I really know is that I can not provide an ipv6 dhcp lease to an android phone and have it receive the address. james On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Ricardo Ferreira < ricardofbferreira@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed? We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it is /64 or /128.
In RFC 3177, it says: 3. Address Delegation Recommendations
The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary between the public and the private topology to follow those general rules:
- /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers. - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design. - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.
Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am wondering if this rule is follwed.
Cheers
-- Ricardo Ferreira
As far as I'm aware Android still today does not support DHCPv6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_in_operating_system... ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of james machado <hvgeekwtrvl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 12:57:58 PM To: Ricardo Ferreira Cc: NANOG Subject: Re: IPv6 Deployment for Mobile Subscribers Ricardo, I know from previous discussions on this list that Android phones are looking for DHCPD leases and not /128's or /64's. From what I remember this is due to the current requirement for multiple ipv6 subnets for various applications (vpns among others) to function correctly. As a result Google has disabled Android from receiving a DHCP lease as it wasn't long enough. if you look back about 6 months there is probably 100+ posts on the subject. All I really know is that I can not provide an ipv6 dhcp lease to an android phone and have it receive the address. james On Fri, Jul 22, 2016 at 1:54 AM, Ricardo Ferreira < ricardofbferreira@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed? We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it is /64 or /128.
In RFC 3177, it says: 3. Address Delegation Recommendations
The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary between the public and the private topology to follow those general rules:
- /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers. - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design. - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.
Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am wondering if this rule is follwed.
Cheers
-- Ricardo Ferreira
On Friday, July 22, 2016, Ricardo Ferreira <ricardofbferreira@gmail.com> wrote:
Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed? We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it is /64 or /128.
In RFC 3177, it says: 3. Address Delegation Recommendations
The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary between the public and the private topology to follow those general rules:
- /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers. - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design. - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.
Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am wondering if this rule is follwed.
Cheers
Phones, as in 3gpp? If so, each phone alway gets a /64, there is no choice. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6459
-- Ricardo Ferreira
Den 22. jul. 2016 20.25 skrev "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com>:
Phones, as in 3gpp? If so, each phone alway gets a /64, there is no choice.
Here the cell companies are marketing their 4G LTE as an alternative to DSL, Coax and fiber for internet access in your home with a 4G wifi router. If they can not do prefix delegation it is no alternative! I would love to test it, but it will be no surprise that none of the four carriers enabled IPv6. Regards Baldur
I would love to test it, but it will be no surprise that none of the four carriers enabled IPv6.
Verizon Wireless has been dual stack for many years, before they ran out of public IPv4 addresses and switched handsets to RFC1918 space for v4. ________________________________ From: NANOG <nanog-bounces@nanog.org> on behalf of Baldur Norddahl <baldur.norddahl@gmail.com> Sent: Friday, July 22, 2016 4:10:41 PM To: nanog@nanog.org Subject: Re: IPv6 Deployment for Mobile Subscribers Den 22. jul. 2016 20.25 skrev "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com>:
Phones, as in 3gpp? If so, each phone alway gets a /64, there is no choice.
Here the cell companies are marketing their 4G LTE as an alternative to DSL, Coax and fiber for internet access in your home with a 4G wifi router. If they can not do prefix delegation it is no alternative! I would love to test it, but it will be no surprise that none of the four carriers enabled IPv6. Regards Baldur
* Baldur Norddahl
Den 22. jul. 2016 20.25 skrev "Ca By" <cb.list6@gmail.com>:
Phones, as in 3gpp? If so, each phone alway gets a /64, there is no choice.
Here the cell companies are marketing their 4G LTE as an alternative to DSL, Coax and fiber for internet access in your home with a 4G wifi router. If they can not do prefix delegation it is no alternative!
Actually, that /64 prefix is delegated, after a fashion. RFC 7278. That said, according to RFC 6459 section 5.3, full DHCPv6-PD support was specified in 3GPP Rel-10. Not sure if there are production deployments of that yet though, and if not how far off they are. But at least it looks like it's coming. Tore
On Fri, 22 Jul 2016 10:54:48 +0200, Ricardo Ferreira said:
Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed? We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it is /64 or /128.
In RFC 3177, it says:
- /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.
See this RFC, which is a recently released BCP: 7934 Host Address Availability Recommendations. L. Colitti, V. Cerf, S. Cheshire, D. Schinazi. July 2016. (Format: TXT=37124 bytes) (Also BCP0204) (Status: BEST CURRENT PRACTICE) (DOI: 10.17487/RFC7934) In short - even when you have only one device connecting, you probably need more than one address. Also, consider the common practice of tethering....
RFC 6177: This document obsoletes RFC 3177, updating its recommendations in the following ways: 1) It is no longer recommended that /128s be given out. While there may be some cases where assigning only a single address may be justified, a site, by definition, implies multiple subnets and multiple devices. Generally, when you look at an obsolete document such as https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3177 there is a link to the current version ("Obsoleted by: 6177"): https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6177 Do not use websites showing RFCs that do not show this information; you'll be stuck with outdated specifications. Grüße, Carsten Ricardo Ferreira wrote:
Is there anyone here working in an ISP where IPv6 is deployed? We are starting to plan the roll-out IPv6 to mobile subscribers (phones) I am interesting in knowing the mask you use for the assignment; whether it is /64 or /128.
In RFC 3177, it says: 3. Address Delegation Recommendations
The IESG and the IAB recommend the allocations for the boundary between the public and the private topology to follow those general rules:
- /48 in the general case, except for very large subscribers. - /64 when it is known that one and only one subnet is needed by design. - /128 when it is absolutely known that one and only one device is connecting.
Basically a sole device will be connecting to the internet so I am wondering if this rule is follwed.
Cheers
participants (9)
-
Baldur Norddahl -
Ca By -
Carsten Bormann -
james machado -
Mikhail Gusarov -
Ricardo Ferreira -
Ryan, Spencer -
Tore Anderson -
Valdis.Kletnieks＠vt.edu