Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis

As general feedback

1. As others have noted, it is important to clarify that home routed
is the default case and local-breakout is only relavent for IMS, but
IMS based roaming and local breakout is yet to see its first
deployment, and may still be years in the future for roaming to work
this way.  So, local breakout is not  a real case and seems to be
causing more confusion.

2.  There is a hazard in assuming the well known prefix is always
available.  Any device should not assume the well known prefix is
available.  This is essentially a misconfiguration that should not
occur.

3.  What i have learned

a.  dual-stack 2 PDP will never work, charging issues in the billing
system, and too much capacity wasted for no real gain

b.  dual-stack 1 PDP (v4v6) will not work any time soon.  Enabling
this feature in the HSS/HLR breaks roaming and there is no way to
ensure this issue is fixed in the hundreds of networks that are
potentially impacted.  There are some backs to do on the home network
that can make this easier but not exposing partner networks to the new
release 8 features.

c.  What does work and adds value (saves IPv4 address for the common
case of not-roaming) :  IPv6-only single PDP 464XLAT on the home
network, IPv4-only single PDP when roaming.  This is how i am moving
forward.  The when at home, the UE has default configs for ipv6-only
and when roaming the ue only attempts to connect using IPv4.  This
gets the vast majority of users in my home network off v4 and keeps
ipv4 for the complicated yet relatively small percentage of roaming
users.

On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM,  <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>
> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis. Please take a look at it and comment.
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops