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

Lorenzo Colitti <> Mon, 23 February 2015 14:55 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7F011A00EC for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:55:09 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id CcD89-FbsoFI for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:55:08 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22a]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D431B1A1AA0 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:55:00 -0800 (PST)
Received: by iecrl12 with SMTP id rl12so23876025iec.2 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:55:00 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=rzxFiCAEYz8qZqZVx95AcgAh+rztwVKdaLo4F7E90dQ=; b=Mn+FLWNt+YFePFYizxPTktSGWmS0ZAwhKVDouyUm+zmAGaeSndcfQWZWRQTHsu+lLt 4oZGstcmt8wDlsvmfwX5NUIJnrZ1RvygIDmHkg8WcXBsaieVgmuEPo10XH8wdWJJNZ03 2CUW1W5S7uVKQG2tP7F1dWTKveCH248yKLVMw5QMMGDaS86ndy8ESC+K3z9tN32+2gyx aSe06wUwwvWB8eANhGEF6hiJgi/NZdFwsT72ZyAHz0p8cXWFNA0ySQIpgmA0ClwASvzj 2N0qxyqNqR4KR+oMZ68e6hRu0taUnCGB4Nkbtf6vIf+WYKd+/KuzH/jEyC2S2QTSUlF1 qoLg==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=rzxFiCAEYz8qZqZVx95AcgAh+rztwVKdaLo4F7E90dQ=; b=kR4y9ZkO8G+PcxUQGaC7p3PZQllDBgiUd0eH/RrG1lswCEhNd/XcrGDx72+9Fp7+/1 zT1Km3ji4PtTWdzT4WP76LhNqSmwulBl8FtgGWflPhHXGfQOn0CLJ3E1H5XZJIWNxSuy KfR9cNohGV8TxKxXATgeI1rBZHQNWQdq3ox5wWT879IoOx2IRDzb+0kI22zSWAnYMCnc ceYSaUJyVuac5gWiuZfW9DpXRvjIjc7jvuhO9ckH8n8mlscoz/rdrQ3LqZm6yp0YJ7yb zBwo3BVldi2Nf48HVLM56v4Mrb7nyMqgPtkAsaTmWrf8ioQ3uKMmIbkSYZbYmkfAeOsZ tO1g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQlGHDKe0dQCmcfjh2JRjbvDXSvByQv50a4I7QfIlXxhSzaPINjsY6hNPxR6+5gGhjwyXLbq
X-Received: by with SMTP id e8mr13346368igx.5.1424703300095; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:55:00 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:54:38 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912254@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049122B6@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049124F0@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <> <> <> <>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 23:54:38 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013c6a201d2f57050fc29623
Archived-At: <>
Cc: V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:55:09 -0000

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 11:42 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson <>

> "should". So as far as I can tell, the current document we're discussion
>> is saying the same thing as 3GPP 23.401. The behaviour is also what I have
>> seen from "all" UEs I did testing with, so I'd say the baseband vendors are
>> doing just this.
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?

Saying "establishing a second PDP context after code 52 is what the 3GPP
standards say the device should do" is all very well. But it's not really
very useful for the IETF to say that, first because those standards are
already written down in other organizations' documents, and second because
(as you yourself point out) the terminals *do* respect the standards and
already behave this way.