Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs

[<[e-mail]>]

Hi Alex,

I think this note can be added to C_REC#6 not C_REC#1. I made this change in my local copy:

OLD: 
   C_REC#6:  The cellular host must be able to be configured to limit
             PDP type(s) for a given APN.  The default mode is to allow
             all supported PDP types.  Note, C_REC#2 discusses the
             default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s).

                This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE
                to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints
                such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE),
                (2) network conditions with regards to the support of
                specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not
                supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription
                data, etc.

NEW:

   C_REC#6:  The cellular host must be able to be configured to limit
             PDP type(s) for a given APN.  The default mode is to allow
             all supported PDP types.  Note, C_REC#2 discusses the
             default behavior for requesting PDP-Context type(s).

                This feature is useful to drive the behavior of the UE
                to be aligned with: (1) service-specific constraints
                such as the use of IPv6-only for VoLTE (Voice over LTE),
                (2) network conditions with regards to the support of
                specific PDP types (e.g., IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not
                supported), (3) IPv4 sunset objectives, (4) subscription
                data, etc.

                Note, a cellular host changing its connection between an
                IPv6-specific APN and an IPv4-specific APN restarts the
                ongoing applications.  This is a brokenness situation.


Please let me know if this is OK. Thank you.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : Alexandru Petrescu [mailto:[e-mail]] 
Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 15:15
À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; [e-mail]
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs

Le 11/02/2015 14:30, [e-mail] a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> The draft includes this text:
>
> Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
> activate dedicated functions at the network side.  It is out of
> scope of this document to list these network-side functions.
>
> This I-D cannot mandate the behavior of the network side as it is up
> to the taste of each operator.
>
> Saying that, if you believe there is a service/application brokenness
> risk due to some kind of policy enforced at the network side with
> regards to the management of PDP contexts and APNs, I see a value in
> adding a "note" to record it.

Note: a smartphone changing its connection between an APN-v6 and an 
APN-v4 block-restarts the ongoing applications.  This is a brokenness 
situation.

Alex

>
> Cheers, Med
>
> -----Message d'origine----- De : v6ops
> [mailto:[e-mail]] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
> Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 12:03 À : [e-mail] Objet :
> Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6
> PDP-contexts and APNs
>
> Le 11/02/2015 10:43, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:51 AM, <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>> The document was adopted by the WG and passed both the WG and IETF
>> LCs with that scope. I naively assumed that this point is not
>> anymore an issue given that the draft passed major milestones
>> (several WGLCs, IETF LC) and the IETF consensus declared for it
>> means this is not an issue to advance the document.
>>
>> I think that assumption is incorrect, given Fred's explicit
>> statement on this thread, "Before I bother the IESG with it a third
>> time, I'd really like to hear a clear consensus, not a rough one."
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg21229.html
>
> LEt me try to understand - are we trying to identify consensus?  Or
> can we still discuss the requirements per se?
>
> To me, the latter has its importance as well.
>
> For example:
>> C_REC#1:  In order to allow each operator to select their own
>> strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host must
>> support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060]. Both IPv6 and
>> IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported.  IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6
>> PDP-Context request acceptance depends on the cellular network
>> configuration.
>
> I would like this requirement to state that _if_ the smartphone sold
> by that operator supports IPv4 PDP-context, IPv6 PDP-context and
> IPv4v6 PDP-context then the operator SHOULD support at least IPv4v6
> PDP-context, and ideally the 3 for the same APN; in all cases, the
> operator SHOULD NOT support only IPv6 PDP-Context or only IPv4
> PDP-Context per one APN.
>
> As surprising it might seem, some operators take an approach of
> supporting only IPv6 PDP-Context on one APN, and the other two on
> other two APNs, regardless of the end-user preference; they have
> their particular reasons which may not be technical.  It is very
> stimulating in some sense (IPv6-only), or too daring for some
> customers which see their IPv6 flows interupted if switching to other
> APN.
>
> Alex
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>