Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com> Sun, 26 December 2010 03:45 UTC

Return-Path: <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 031CB28C0D8 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:45:14 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.549
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.549 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.050, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ts9yV66hoI0K for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:45:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net (smtp.netregistry.net [202.124.241.204]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DCECE28C0CE for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 25 Dec 2010 19:45:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [93.138.86.199] (helo=[192.168.1.4]) by smtp-1.servers.netregistry.net protocol: esmtpa (Exim 4.69 #1 (Debian)) id 1PWhZg-0004fI-Px; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:47:14 +1100
User-Agent: Microsoft-Entourage/12.28.0.101117
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 14:47:04 +1100
From: Hesham Soliman <hesham@elevatemobile.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Message-ID: <C93D05E8.170F4%hesham@elevatemobile.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
Thread-Index: Acukr49D5km+/2KMRkOIcYnZrPf38Q==
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012251941290.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit
X-Authenticated-User: hesham@elevatemobile.com
Cc: v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 03:45:14 -0000

>> => Yes of course, if you duplicate the APNs you have that would work. I
>> don't know how much control you have over that but if you can do that
>> then it will work. Of course you have to make sure your subscriber has
>> an IPv6 capable phone and will never change it before he tells you so
>> you can switch his APN then switch it back with his other phone ...and
>> so on. Practical?
> 
> I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm wondering if your world
> is very different from mine.

=> I'm starting to think that as well.

>>> Also, a lot of networks have not purchased the "multiple PDP context"
>>> license so this would not work when roaming.
>> 
>> => No that would work, your IPv6-only approach might be a problem when
>> you're roaming. A DS host would just use IPv4 if no IPv6 was available.
>> There are other ways of roaming in 3GPP anyway that would connect back to
>> the home network so that's not the issue.
> 
> Again, I don't understand what you're talking about. The phones available
> today isn't DS, they only support single PDP context, and if I only
> provide IPv6 PDP context for that subscriber, they will use that or fail.

=> Right and my comment was how would you like it if they fail? That has
nothing to do with theoritical knowledge, you'll offer an IPv6 only PDP and
the user might not be able to establish that, then what? You're associating
a subscription with an IP address family. The support of IPv6 is an
attribute of the device not the subscription.

> 
>> I therefore see this less
>>> likely as being implemented in real life in the short to medium term.
>> 
>> => Not because of the reason you have above. Roaming won't matter here.
> 
> Again, same thing. I don't understand how this would not matter. Roaming
> is important and it needs to work.

=> I didn't say it's not important, I said there are ways of making it work
regardldess by connectimg to the home network. I also said that a DS host
would roam fine using IPv4 if v6 was not available. I don't see anything
complex in that.

Hesham