Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile
Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Sun, 26 December 2010 13:11 UTC
Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.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 8C7C33A67FA for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:11:51 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.894
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.894 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.105, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
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 1VphziUKRG-q for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qw0-f44.google.com (mail-qw0-f44.google.com [209.85.216.44]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 223CC3A67A4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:11:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qwg5 with SMTP id 5so8171694qwg.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:13:54 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=Kj8PahvRyraoYxJnBzkyMagVvSUIxbQEPVmV3KhlxuU=; b=kqtjFfUpspOWGgDuxTvYVbSqL+aEOEVUS3xpzOr3ZEiH9qezVPOaTTw+phSIgOkcQB S1gXBeO2xG6gqJpW/8LD9wbsCIUn5pLqrUznpaEVn/LFZC0RqZ39lHYWctDjrsEMmeEb arZW2YveBgjww/TyGi6SrmbcbQR9H+UfL6ZNQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=GcW+ZZ0Za/x3nWNwfM+3FC1O8yRWHDBQNl8FdibFusO7UfMWgid2wSMb7eLkyS6cgP ooqGQbEhcClfPnHSv5OFyjiHeyYyGVI99GGOtts6KP5+wTnysw17Tssq3SzQXDdOiPFE wxuDqZ5JzwOO0zuXUSv3rubjfrw4IbVfPWSkI=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.250.130 with SMTP id mo2mr10180814qcb.163.1293369232917; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:13:52 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.106.214 with HTTP; Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:13:52 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012261135540.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <1293354486.1457.23.camel@Nokia-N900> <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012261135540.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2010 05:13:52 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTimiLpB7O6XD9oejj2gitEF6XOdWqiuzo8tEg_HZ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] 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 13:11:51 -0000
On Sun, Dec 26, 2010 at 2:40 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> wrote: > On Sun, 26 Dec 2010, teemu.savolainen@nokia.com wrote: > >> For a set of terminals you could probably make a patch or add-on (very >> much like VPNs), but afaik these same "sortsighted market forces" are not so >> interested to provide IPv6 for legacy terminals, but are planning to wait >> for the rather quick device replacement cycle to do the job. > > What are the odds that a majority of new phones sold in mid 2011 will have > proper IPv6 support? We (mobile operator) can be ready by then easily, but > without a comittment from the major vendors that this will happen it's hard > to allocate resources for this instead of focusing on deploying NAT44. > > We have two ways out of IPv4 run-out right now, either deploy NAT44 for our > mobile customers (all kinds) or hope that IPv6 support will be in handsets. > I fear that we have to do both, but since we know for a fact NAT44 will > work, this will have higher priority. > >From my perspective, doing both IPv6-only nat64 and IPv4 NAT44 is required. I see 2 types of customer and handset pairs: those that require IPv4 and those that can work well with IPv6. For those that require IPv4, NAT44 is the path. We do it today for 99% of our 30 million customers For users that can work well with IPv6, we MUST transition them to IPv6 to start chipping away at the IPv4 only user base and demonstrate to the community at large that IPv6 is REAL and NOW. We, as SPs, have to gain experience in supplying IPv6 services and the only way to do that is to start rolling it out to customers, one handset model at a time. In theory, there are a group of customers that require IPv4 and IPv6 at the same time, aka dual stack. But, i think it is only in theory, All the *real world use cases* i am aware of 100% work with IPv4-only NAT44. Some subset of that can work with IPv6-only + NAT64, and that is the subset i will start to transition and grow. Cameron > -- > Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se > _______________________________________________ > v6ops mailing list > v6ops@ietf.org > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops >
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Martin Millnert
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Fred Baker
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Xiangsong Cui
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile jouni korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Thomas Habets
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Thomas Habets
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Thomas Habets
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Joel Jaeggli
- [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobi… Brian E Carpenter
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Behcet Sarikaya
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Satoru Matsushima
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Ted Lemon
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Hesham Soliman
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile teemu.savolainen
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Mikael Abrahamsson
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Cameron Byrne
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Frank Bulk - iName.com
- [v6ops] take a breather... Worse than NATed IPv4?… Joel Jaeggli
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Rémi Després
- Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for … Gert Doering