IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk> Fri, 03 March 2017 19:12 UTC

Return-Path: <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2DDF6129997 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:12:00 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.901
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.901 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 LGOVb1x4KqG1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:11:59 -0800 (PST)
Received: from patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (patsy.thehobsons.co.uk [81.174.135.208]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4260212998E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 11:11:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: Debian amavisd-new at patsy.thehobsons.co.uk
Received: from simons-macbookpro.lan (magpiehouse.plus.com [80.229.10.150]) by patsy.thehobsons.co.uk (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 32E651BC37 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 3 Mar 2017 19:11:51 +0000 (UTC)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.6 \(1510\))
From: Simon Hobson <linux@thehobsons.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <c538a328-46ca-d2f5-afcc-395af1fdcdee@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 19:11:49 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <40CB35A1-F512-496D-B0B7-19EC947E398D@thehobsons.co.uk>
References: <d1193890-0066-ad01-e521-0d9e8df065a8@gmail.com> <CAAedzxoy+=+FB=U89Fe84hDNwSdZTk0e8YYn934=V3RS3yb=DA@mail.gmail.com> <61403895-2de4-f769-2a8c-486d14a297f4@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTgCf1qWFxcG9psVFG_nfRj2EWUoy6i7mLY_39COESsYQ@mail.gmail.com> <66d7e60b-32ec-744f-384e-ef66cc01bf8b@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQC3rpoJU=fPgmxce-1LJHYoOdJW0FEKWa6PxyRrLyN+g@mail.gmail.com> <c538a328-46ca-d2f5-afcc-395af1fdcdee@gmail.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1510)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/6O1WNvZYAFhPYRgKtlON1vnQoA4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Fri, 03 Mar 2017 19:12:00 -0000

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Are you interested in getting more traffic through your network?  Or not?

Based on past activities, I suspect that for many networks, the answer is "no" ! More specifically, I suspect many would see the inability to expand the client end network as an advantage - giving them an opportunity to charge extra from people who do want that extra functionality.
So as to "demand is there, supply isn't" - that may be as much a business decision (screw the customer) as technical foot dragging.

Or perhaps I'm just too cynical about mobile network operators.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email