Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

["Heatley, Nick" <[e-mail]>]

Yes, I agree with you, that is a sensible approach.
Working with each vendor in turn.
(You know each vendor who claims IPv6 readiness for their terminal, will never say whether the device will work on the operators IPv6 network.
So it needs to be collaborative.)

So all this document is doing is setting a collective roadmap, rather than expect vendors to do their own thing. Given we agree on the above, this is not harmful.

I think the real disagreement comes from your opinion that this is not IETF.
(By the way, mobile operators have had discussions with the sister org of the Internet Society about what would help mobile operators introduce IPv6.
One of the major major themes has been terminals.)


From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]]
Sent: 18 February 2015 07:26
To: Heatley, Nick
Cc: Ross Chandler; IPv6 Ops WG ([e-mail])
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Heatley, Nick <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
I can see why you argue for lowest common denominator of v6 requirements.
I think your stance that this can work across the board is “harmfully restrictive”.
The other approach is understanding the differences and trying to set a slightly higher bar that highlights conditional requirements of the collective; what you call  “harmfully broad”.

What I'm saying is that if your goal is IPv6 deployment in a reasonable timeframe, then the right strategy is *not* to make a list of all the features under the sun, wait until they have all been implemented, and deploy them. A better strategy is to start from the features that are required, test and deploy those, and then iterate. As the industry evolves and IPv6 becomes more common, IPv6 features will become higher priority for vendors and they will get implemented.

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 8:31 PM, Heatley, Nick <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
This is the game of chicken approach, I have no doubt it works, but is it inclusive to all mobile operators?
For me, it has some limitations:

-          The operator must have top down backing for a terminal policy of “IPv6 or you are out” (now that is a wildcard condition in itself); it may compromise relationships in a valuable ecosystem

-          Where the operator has high major market power helps. Where markets have a number of players ready to play the IPv6 game, there is an advantage. Otherwise the operator is very exposed to divide and conquer

-          Currently it tends to play out as a the simplest set of requirements. Which also means simplest set of network capabilities. Sometimes these simplest set of network capabilities are at odds with the business priorities of the operator (clear examples are: APN strategy, tethering approach, roaming approach, subsidised handset vs “SIM-only”)
(Not having an IPv6 capable network is a myth you are promoting to discredit operator views, it is a red herring – any operator specifying *any* IPv6 requirements will very quickly need this capability to validate terminals whatever the path they choose.)

I can see why you argue for lowest common denominator of v6 requirements.
I think your stance that this can work across the board is “harmfully restrictive”.
The other approach is understanding the differences and trying to set a slightly higher bar that highlights conditional requirements of the collective; what you call  “harmfully broad”.


From: Lorenzo Colitti [mailto:[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>]
Sent: 17 February 2015 02:41
To: Heatley, Nick
Cc: Ross Chandler; IPv6 Ops WG ([e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>)
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]<mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
Yes. Make IPv6* (see below) a requirement for carrier-branded devices, and give the OEMs a credible signal that from date X onwards, you *will* fail TA on every device that doesn't implement IPv6, and you *will not* waive the requirement. That's what Verizon and T-Mobile did, and it worked for them.

Also: if you think that this strategy is not feasible because you do not have an IPv6 network yet, then yes, that's true - you can't make IPv6 a device requirement until you have an IPv6 network.

But I think the key point here is that apart from the lack of 464xlat on iOS, the mobile operating systems are a lot more ready for IPv6 than you might think they are. Once the network is complete, I think turning on IPv6 in the devices does work. Orange Poland, Telenor, and SK Telecom should be able to confirm.

NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.

We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you.

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW




NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER
This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.  
 
We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. 

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.