IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> Wed, 13 November 2013 07:21 UTC

Return-Path: <tore@fud.no>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7CAA21E8082 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:21:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.525
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.525 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.075, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R6C-NqFSfOLX for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from greed.fud.no (greed.fud.no [IPv6:2a02:c0:1001:100::145]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 49D9521E805F for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 12 Nov 2013 23:21:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com ([2a02:c0:100:0:9e8e:99ff:fed1:5243]:38358 helo=echo.linpro.no) by greed.fud.no with esmtpsa (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_CAMELLIA_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from <tore@fud.no>) id 1VgUlL-0007lY-7Q; Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:21:19 +0100
Message-ID: <5283286F.8000504@fud.no>
Date: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 08:21:19 +0100
From: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>, Hui Deng <denghui02@gmail.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <0D5C911E-5EB3-4F1F-82B1-B2F486AE3E46@cisco.com> <527E1385.1020506@gmail.com> <CANF0JMCBHXDW0jtNufqAUwrUqrN5+nwqSXFe5q6SQr5+nySUDA@mail.gmail.com> <527FACE5.6040002@gmail.com> <CANF0JMAfPiz6nDRiR5W2NaUKSTYG9c48+xxJm=NSyEEy2CP33Q@mail.gmail.com> <5280F33F.4040605@gmail.com> <CANF0JMCBkVvzbWrp_aPik+BGyhexrZmPaEf=6wFSL0uR-gV3TA@mail.gmail.com> <52820BA2.8020001@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <52820BA2.8020001@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Wed, 13 Nov 2013 07:21:23 -0000

* Alexandru Petrescu

> It all depends what we call 'roaming'.
> 
> What I have not tried is the following two scenarios:
> - roam IPv6 from one country to the next, keeping same IPv6 operator,
>   without switching off the handset.  Note whether or not the ongoing
>   applications break at handover.  Maybe by car or by train.
> - roam IPv6 from one IPv6 operator to another IPv6 operator, without
>   switching off the handset.  Maybe not being mobile at all.
> 
> They can easily be tried.
> 
> Intuitively, I would say that applications get interrupted, because
> there would be change in the IPv6 address allocated to the smartphone.

I have experience with your second case above: When I roam from one
operator to another within Norway, my IPv6 address does not change, and
any existing connections do not get interrupted. Layer 3 appears to be
completely unaware that roaming occurs.

Next time I drive across the border to Sweden I'll test your first case
too. It would surprise me if the behaviour was any different though.

Tore

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email