Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a Third Generation Partnership Project (3GPP) Mobile Interface to a LAN Link
draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-10

Approval announcement
Draft of message to be sent after approval:

Announcement

From: The IESG <iesg-secretary@ietf.org>
To: IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Cc: RFC Editor <rfc-editor@rfc-editor.org>,
    v6ops mailing list <v6ops@ietf.org>,
    v6ops chair <v6ops-chairs@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Document Action: 'Extending an IPv6 /64 Prefix from a 3GPP Mobile Interface to a LAN link' to Informational RFC (draft-ietf-v6ops-64share-10.txt)

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/

Ballot Text

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.

RFC Editor Note