Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Heatley, Nick <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  I can see why you argue for lowest common denominator of v6 requirements.
>
> I think your stance that this can work across the board is “harmfully
> restrictive”.
>
> The other approach is understanding the differences and trying to set a
> slightly higher bar that highlights conditional requirements of the
> collective; what you call  “harmfully broad”.
>

What I'm saying is that if your goal is IPv6 deployment in a reasonable
timeframe, then the right strategy is *not* to make a list of all the
features under the sun, wait until they have all been implemented, and
deploy them. A better strategy is to start from the features that are
required, test and deploy those, and then iterate. As the industry evolves
and IPv6 becomes more common, IPv6 features will become higher priority for
vendors and they will get implemented.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Heatley, Nick <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>  This is the game of chicken approach, I have no doubt it works, but is
> it inclusive to all mobile operators?
>
> For me, it has some limitations:
>
> -          The operator must have top down backing for a terminal policy
> of “IPv6 or you are out” (now that is a wildcard condition in itself); it
> may compromise relationships in a valuable ecosystem
>
> -          Where the operator has high major market power helps. Where
> markets have a number of players ready to play the IPv6 game, there is an
> advantage. Otherwise the operator is very exposed to divide and conquer
>
> -          Currently it tends to play out as a the simplest set of
> requirements. Which also means simplest set of network capabilities.
> Sometimes these simplest set of network capabilities are at odds with the
> business priorities of the operator (clear examples are: APN strategy,
> tethering approach, roaming approach, subsidised handset vs “SIM-only”)
>
> (Not having an IPv6 capable network is a myth you are promoting to
> discredit operator views, it is a red herring – any operator specifying *
> *any** IPv6 requirements will very quickly need this capability to
> validate terminals whatever the path they choose.)
>
>
>
> I can see why you argue for lowest common denominator of v6 requirements.
>
> I think your stance that this can work across the board is “harmfully
> restrictive”.
>
> The other approach is understanding the differences and trying to set a
> slightly higher bar that highlights conditional requirements of the
> collective; what you call  “harmfully broad”.
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]]
> *Sent:* 17 February 2015 02:41
> *To:* Heatley, Nick
> *Cc:* Ross Chandler; IPv6 Ops WG ([e-mail])
> *Subject:* Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call-
> "harmfully broad"?
>
>
>
> On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
>
> Yes. Make IPv6* (see below) a requirement for carrier-branded devices, and
> give the OEMs a credible signal that from date X onwards, you *will* fail
> TA on every device that doesn't implement IPv6, and you *will not* waive
> the requirement. That's what Verizon and T-Mobile did, and it worked for
> them.
>
>
>
> Also: if you think that this strategy is not feasible because you do not
> have an IPv6 network yet, then yes, that's true - you can't make IPv6 a
> device requirement until you have an IPv6 network.
>
>
>
> But I think the key point here is that apart from the lack of 464xlat on
> iOS, the mobile operating systems are a lot more ready for IPv6 than you
> might think they are. Once the network is complete, I think turning on IPv6
> in the devices does work. Orange Poland, Telenor, and SK Telecom should be
> able to confirm.
>
> NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
> This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named
> person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender
> immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use
> for any purpose.
>
> We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current
> legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments
> are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that
> viruses do not adversely affect you.
>
> EE Limited
> Registered in England and Wales
> Company Registered Number: 02382161
> Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield,
> Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW
>
>
>