IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt

Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com> Tue, 05 August 2014 10:53 UTC

Return-Path: <jouni.nospam@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 636281B2984 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:53:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 QGh3lC2uTsAf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:53:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-la0-x230.google.com (mail-la0-x230.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4010:c03::230]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BA57A1B2951 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 5 Aug 2014 03:53:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-la0-f48.google.com with SMTP id gl10so559580lab.21 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=subject:mime-version:content-type:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to; bh=2eGAmoUbTBQCYZW/O9x7mEsyuNKKhAmh5mWAhXJP0AY=; b=Pf6g/Pbg30/kP+99EhzCweTnSU+kKvTO5aQS0MUs7G9bZbJxXgnoRYYF/H+qNl72W/ ZliJqofH6MR2DrOU9fCv8e5H9v57LJMJtfCv0FmfjdhDX/Tr/u22TBUvYH2t4ySTuGFq 661kfR4wVXCZszsMWPUp0+OVQWsauyXg/wCf3VKF3My4WI7o3oBAFsfpV8z1aF2ltWCv frKPuHVg277cHTEb//hoSuIyzpD58p/dMCGMw36aDjP5uV/bR+PtxiSk4Xy1l0rMTrWj Z8f3JKTL7g+rVgoJVogHRUjivFAUvzGb0V9yJbJ+Mu59kWs+NXxhy5UBvL7T7cflpq4p wG6A==
X-Received: by 10.112.30.39 with SMTP id p7mr2945766lbh.35.1407236033083; Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:53:53 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [188.117.15.109] ([188.117.15.109]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id qv5sm2166043lbb.19.2014.08.05.03.53.51 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 05 Aug 2014 03:53:52 -0700 (PDT)
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v1283)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
From: Jouni <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMEQDmabh1Smm-qibzNfZtj-RWYxyFO7xMVJUaH3yCccD2Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 13:53:50 +0300
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <B0BB2BF3-7BEF-478D-B255-3E174E447CD8@gmail.com>
References: <20140804010755.5662.75071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAM+vMETtTvs9oeNtg5T7ReyyH1o3g7VXtpG+g-3bKbm6dpAoEQ@mail.gmail.com> <8E890204-B4A8-4EDC-BFF6-FC33A2C30FC6@eircom.net> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1408041827340.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAM+vMEQDmabh1Smm-qibzNfZtj-RWYxyFO7xMVJUaH3yCccD2Q@mail.gmail.com>
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1283)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/NstQ8G0e1tsb92D7WmZvvNQctrc
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt
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: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 10:53:58 -0000

On Aug 5, 2014, at 1:28 PM, GangChen wrote:

> 2014-08-05 0:31 GMT+08:00, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>:
> 
>>> Section 7, discussions,  says “dual-stack deployment is recommended in
>>> most cases”.
>>> Is that still the consensus position?  Going straight to single-stack IPv6
>>> is looking very viable now
>>> when the UE supports a method of providing translated IPv4 access over the
>>> IPv6 PDP/PDN
>>> connection.
>> 
>> I don't think there is consensus here. The draft could point out pros and
>> cons with each approach.
> 
> I'm not a fan of dual-stack deployment. However, I have to point out
> if you take look at TS23.060 or TS23.401, you may find the sentence "A
> UE which is IPv6 and IPv4 capable shall request for PDN type IPv4v6".
> GSMA quotes the similar language from 3GPP for roaming guidance.
> Therefore, that is at least a consensus in other SDOs.
> 
> The draft intends to state the issues and potential workarounds in
> various scenarios. Argument of selection of dual-stack or IPv6-only
> may not be the goal of the draft.

We had this discussion a long ago.. and back then we agreed not to promote any specific solution (like XLAT etc) but just give facts how different approaches work.

- Jouni



> 
> BRs
> 
> Gang
> 
> 
> 
> 
>> --
>> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> 
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email