Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Wed, 06 August 2014 19:46 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFEB81B27EB for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:46:14 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id s36sEb5ahKPG for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:46:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail07.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail07.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.23]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 5846B1A0115 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 12:46:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 95535 messnum 9964132 invoked from network[213.94.190.12/avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 6 Aug 2014 19:46:08 -0000
Received: from avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.12) by mail07.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 95535) with SMTP; 6 Aug 2014 19:46:08 -0000
Received: from mac1.home.ross.net ([159.134.196.35]) by avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id bXm51o00E0mJ9Tz01Xm8WC; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:46:08 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1250"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <53E27522.4070901@fud.no>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 20:46:04 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <84A403BD-7E93-4D99-8C11-FB7F91B68154@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <CAD6AjGTwt-20gXs=RUH5zbhT+g3HKrvXHX3FnShjF1srqU21Fw@mail.gmail.com> <94146541-768B-4853-A011-7558655C361C@eircom.net> <53E11795.7060305@fud.no> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1408060856080.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <53E1D951.8030200@fud.no> <3f59106bc21840dfb144c7933215294f@srvhk403.rdm.cz> <53E27522.4070901@fud.no>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/3BV5gg8CM05QPtrQkpopQjsVc-A
Cc: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 19:46:15 -0000

On 6 Aug 2014, at 19:34, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

> Yes, I think I've understood this part. My point is that since Telenor's
> APN does not support the IPv4 PDP type, then it won't work to use IPv4
> as the Roaming PDP type, as was suggested earlier in the thread. (Nor as
> the Home PDP type, for that matter.) So the only sensible setting in
> this case would be to use PDP type IPv6 for both the Roaming and Home
> PDP type settings.
> 
> If on the other hand the APN supports both IPv4 and IPv6 (like
> Tele2/NwN's does), then that is a different story, and having the UE use
> IPv4 when roaming makes sense (if the roaming partners break IPv6 for
> some reason).
> 
> At least that’s how I understand it...

It might be that when the UE visits a network that doesn’t allow IPv6 in the user-plane Android behaviour is kicking in.

I’ve been told that Android treats all APNs as “roughly equal”. 

If the new IPv6-only-without-IPv4-fallback APN fails then Android might be trying the IPv4 one.

BR
Ross