IPv6 Deployment for Mobile Subscribers

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

Good day,

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

As far as I'm aware Android still today does not support DHCPv6.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_IPv6_support_in_operating_systems

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.

Phones, as in 3gpp? If so, each phone alway gets a /64, there is no

choice.

RFC 6459 - IPv6 in 3rd Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Evolved Packet System (EPS)

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.

* Baldur Norddahl

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: