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

[GangChen <[e-mail]>]

2013/7/29, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>:
>
> On Jul 29, 2013, at 1:10 PM, GangChen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> 2013/7/29, Jouni Korhonen <[e-mail]>:
>>>
>>> On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:25 PM, GangChen <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hi Cameron,
>>>>
>>>> Thank you for the comments.
>>>>
>>>> 2013/7/28, cb.list6 <[e-mail]>:
>>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> local-breakout may not be only for IMS. We have deployed that for all
>>>> the data roaming between different province's networks in China. It
>>>> offers efficient routes. Besides, 3GPP specified the SIPTO
>>>> architecture for roaming. That may bring impacts in the future.
>>>
>>> Just to understand this better.. Does "data roaming between different
>>> province's networks" mean the province's networks have different PLMN
>>> codes? Do these "province's networks" belong to different operators or
>>> to the same operator (from the administration/business point of view)?
>>
>> The different province's networks belong to the same operator. The
>> local-breakout roaming is enabled by adding APN-OI replacement into a
>> subscriber's profile
>
> So the PLMN codes are the same for all provinces? If that is the case, then
> what you are doing hardly is "roaming" rather an intelligent gateway
> selection.

That is a good question. At http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roaming, the
roaming has been interpreted as "In wireless telecommunications,
roaming is a general term referring to the extension of connectivity
service in a location that is different from the home location where
the service was registered." Roaming behavior is justified by whether
the visited network has subscriber's registration information. MNC+MCC
may not be the matter.

> Is the VPLMN dynamic address allowed flag set to ALLOWED? Does the APN-OI
> replacement change dynamically in the subscriber profile based on the
> UE location or is it configured "statically" based on where the
> subscription
> is assumed to be used most of the time?

The APN-OI replacement is configured in a static way and assumed to be
used in most times.

-Gang


> - JOuni
>
>
>>
>> BRs
>>
>> Gang
>>
>>
>>> - Jouni
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Ok. You don't recommend using WKP. How about taking different priority
>>>> for the deployment
>>>>
>>>> High priority:  nat64-discovery
>>>> Medium: WKP
>>>> Low: manual configuration
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for the good summary. That is the lesson we have leaned.
>>>>
>>>> BRs
>>>>
>>>> Gang
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM,  <[e-mail]> 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
>>>>>> [e-mail]
>>>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> [e-mail]
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>>
>
>