Re: Call for v6ops agenda items

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 6:00 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
>> Instead of answering these questions, tell me what is so wrong with giving
>> a mobile user (cell phone! security camera, electricity meter ...) a /112 or
>> something similar?  Why is it so important that the 3GPP specs REQUIRE a
>> /64, and consequently the vendors don't support anything else?  Really, GGSN
>> vendors only support /64 ....
>
> I also work for a cellular provider/ISP, but I guess I can combine that with
> being an "ipv6 zealot".

:)


>
> Yes, I do agree that requiring a /64 per bearer/PDP is suboptimal, there
> should be a choice. I still don't think it's a waste of space, but I can
> agree that allowing for a few different subnet sizes would make sense.
>

Teemu,

That means there are 2 of us now.  Does that make it relevant
conversation?  Keep in mind, if it is hard coded in ipv6 in 2010 make
a big difference from being hard coded in 2012.  Lets fix it now in
the standards, otherwise an enterprising GGSN manufacturer will add it
as a knob and customers will buy it and use it.

Cameron

> --
> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
>