The IESG has approved the following document: - 'Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN link' (draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-10.txt) as Informational RFC This document is the product of the IPv6 Operations Working Group. The IESG contact persons are Joel Jaeggli and Benoit Claise. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-64share/ Technical Summary This document summarizes the sharing of IPv6 connectivity for 3GPP devices or UEs in advance of implementations that fully support IPv6 prefix delegation. Specifically, this document outlines how a 3GPP device can facilitate connection sharing where only a single, globally routable /64 IPv6 prefix is available. Working Group Summary This draft was initiated in December 2012 draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-00.txt and has been actively updated since the initial draft was published. T-Mobile and DT have been actively working in this space advancing this work while mobile handsets evolve to support more advanced connectivity models including support for IPv6 prefix delegation. The overarching goal of the draft is to enable support for multiple devices through a connection that is enabled with globally routable IPv6 connectivity that is typically akin to that for a single device. This work does not employ the use of IPv6 address sharing or any form of translation related to IPv6. The working group has commented on at length and in turn the authors revised the draft to account for this feedback. Principally significant feedback was given around MTU handling and matters related to IPv6 neighbor discovery in where 64share has been deployed. More recently alignment with related work has been considered including RFC6204bis. Finally, Neighbor Discovery Proxy (ND Proxy) [RFC4389] functionality has been suggested as an option for extending the assigned /64 from the 3GPP radio interface to the LAN link, but ND Proxy is an experimental protocol and has some limitations with loop-avoidance. Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel As specified in the abstract, the document is not a protocol or procedure; the document does outline implementation details and observations of the same to date in various modes of operation.
