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

[Alexandru Petrescu <[e-mail]>]

Le 12/02/2015 10:36, [e-mail] a écrit :
> 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.

YEs, this note is OK, thanks.

Alex

>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
>
>