Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 23/02/2015 16:57, Ca By a écrit :
>
>
> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
>
>         I stand by my earlier questions. Do we have evidence that people
>         do this in production? It's not just the money - Dual-PDP is
>         either a 100% increase or a 50% increase in state and signaling
>         load over single-PDP. It also has worse fate-sharing properties
>         (e.g., IPv4 can fail but IPv6 can be working, and vice versa).
>         Is that something we want to recommend?
>
>         I get it that if you're an operator, the ideal situation is that
>         you have a
>         knob to control every possible aspect of device behaviour, even
>         if you
>         never use it. But forget about that for a moment. Remember, this
>         group is
>         about providing *operational guidance*. Is this really something
>         you would
>         recommend operationally? If so, why?
>
>
>     My opinion is the following:
>
>     We should recommend to run IPv4v6 whereever possible to operators,
>     for the reasons you provide.
>
>
> i don't see how we, v6ops,  can recommend operators deploy ipv4
> addresses that are not available.

Cameron - these addresses _are_ available, they're NATted anyways.

I know the IPv4 exhaustion problem, but it does not apply here: that
problem is a _publicly_ routable IPv4 address problem, not a private
routable address problem. One can have larger than 2^32 networks
entirely on IPv4 with multiple NATs and/or traffic engineering.

One would appreciate an IPv4 private address with IPv4IPv6-type rather
than an IPv6-only type.

> Should we include an appendix listing ipv4 brokers they can contact?

YEs, it is good to have such a list in one place. Do they do this
automatically or does one have to fill in forms?

> Oh, and don't forget the v6ops is also publishing this
>
> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-07
>
> Quoting:
>
> "In the network attachment stage, PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 is the major
>
>     concern to the visited pre-Release 9 SGSN. 3GPP didn't specify PDP/
>     PDN type IPv4v6 in the earlier releases.  That PDP/PDN type is
>     supported in new-built EPS network, but isn't supported well in the
>     third generation network."

So the network should be updated to support IPv4IPv6 type.

Alex

>
>
> CB
>
>     We should recommend device manufacturers to follow the 3GPP
>     standards and set up a second PDP context when it receives CC#52.
>
>
>     --
>     Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>
>     _________________________________________________
>     v6ops mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/v6ops
>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>