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

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Thu, 12 February 2015 09:41 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A9461A1B5A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:41:04 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Jorr_Hysxtmk for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cirse-out.extra.cea.fr (cirse-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.142]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33D3A1A0382 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 01:41:01 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by cirse.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t1C9ex6C024877; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:40:59 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 126A4205C25; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:41:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet1.intra.cea.fr (muguet1.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.6]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 06E2B205BCA; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:41:53 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet1.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t1C9eXDT027755; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:40:58 +0100
Message-ID: <54DC7511.40400@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 10:40:33 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BF1BDC61-D8BD-4FB3-A111-070D9FF51F60@cisco.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DE865D@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908DF9@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1CPecjtSM6iUjgy+0hYJGKbwsiSXL-Rs3EreWXg8bAew@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908E6C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2D3S3uGYczBmjZ2v06BXYUZRZ-zPbuueouCjTUbwehPA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908F65@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr37-VuiCMDigTxj-dg2J3ne685Qsbg39vM6ad2B=tnYSg@mail.gmail.com> <54DB36CC.90308@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490931C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <54DB63E8.7020205@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004909AC1@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.! ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004909AC1@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/A6jsIVj6i0-6L4EiA-hh9jiRS90>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 09:41:04 -0000

Le 12/02/2015 10:36, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 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:alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com]
> Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 15:15
> À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed IMT/OLN; v6ops@ietf.org
> Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs
>
> Le 11/02/2015 14:30, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com 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:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
>> Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 12:03 À : v6ops@ietf.org 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, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>>> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> 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
>>> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>
>
>
>