Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-13.txt> (An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 8:42 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

>  Show me an operator whose rollout is genuinely blocked on terminal
> features and I will believe you. But word from everyone I've talked to is
> that terminal features are not the blocker. Operators such as Verizon
> Wireless and T-Mobile in the US have deployed tens of millions of
> IPv6-capable devices, and none of those devices (and, I'd argue, no
> commercial devices, anywhere) implement all the features in this profile.
> The vast majority only support a handful.
>
>  [DB] Do we consider that all features are mandatory in the draft ? Not
> at all and it demonstrates that RFC 2119 terminology is useful.
>

Ok, then. So here are examples of musts that are not required for IPv6
operation in a mobile network, and not supported in widely deployed mobile
platforms:

C-3 PDP context fallback
C-9 RDNSS
C-10 DHCPv6
C-11 DNS provisioning order
C-12 PDP type limitation
W-1 IPv6-only wifi
A-1 Privacy addresses (because the IID is provided by the network)
A-5 Prefer IPv6 DNS server
L-1 DHCPv6 PD
L-2 Full Customer Edge Router support
A-2 Applications must be IP agnostic
A-3 URI format

Whatever you think, it is still a problem to get some IPv6-ready devices
> and that explains why some on-going IPv6 deployment still rely on some
> limited number of devices in some areas.
>

Then please explain to me how Verizon Wireless supports IPv6 on all its LTE
devices, and has done since 2011?


> the document does not add any new hurdles for IPv6 deployment since it
> list some requirements based on existing specifications.
>

But it does add hurdles for IPv6 deployment. Because it lists lots of
requirements that are not required for IPv6 deployment in mobile networks,
and that are not widely supported by mobile devices.


> We should speak for ourselves and should not imagine how other people will
> consider such document.
>

Sorry, no. As IETF contributors it is our job to consider what other people
will think when they read the documents that we produce.