Re: [v6ops] draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis (GangChen)
Pete Vickers <peter.vickers@gmail.com> Sun, 28 July 2013 09:15 UTC
Return-Path: <peter.vickers@gmail.com>
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 DCFD321F9D6F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599]
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 DHS1e77wT4Ej for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:15:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ea0-x22d.google.com (mail-ea0-x22d.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c01::22d]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 935A121F9D8A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:15:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ea0-f173.google.com with SMTP id g10so2361681eak.4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=content-type:mime-version:subject:from:in-reply-to:date:cc :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:references:to:x-mailer; bh=J0nmNBjGa1NP/PtDPcjqiVlG0w7uBqxlqqBuy1Hzlhw=; b=mTBKRALK0/hbrIlZmIYweM94+Oy51bRihKUaOcqeMBboVcSh4wCJ2O/Agb8wRdgqat I6XR1h43eD3y2m5bPwJg7K8SsHjbJBEJCm9AFmgfiKYvOd7LED/tHXGz2PxwQqsHTW4E HA0AWjhyJClMaNkAlZ9QtM6iv+huwSCc4fZqIuRVaRzmSRp6Ewx6kBh4iRQDB2AIbuk1 kEe47V4ADIU2PBDCjO6DhFIp1+i2cl8tq9YUGsdQeGu12r0PIFO7mDX6qLTu3SC2mRsF nSg/ZEpurN/uLJRVdATSMigv7/wnjtwt3vlMGyI3E/84Uk9u5M9Uc2xVMjAlSEy9BHl8 9r5Q==
X-Received: by 10.15.63.8 with SMTP id l8mr54619541eex.23.1375002912737; Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.0.2.116] ([87.248.7.97]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id j2sm17221602eep.6.2013.07.28.02.15.11 for <multiple recipients> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 28 Jul 2013 02:15:12 -0700 (PDT)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 6.5 \(1508\))
From: Pete Vickers <peter.vickers@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMERRa4VYxJ8zDRX7wnLtQkmixA=AW6XZTW1jdL3C-PhaOA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 11:15:10 +0200
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <0ABFBA5D-ABBB-4C9F-8F46-9FA59F11C339@gmail.com>
References: <AF71F428-4DA1-49DC-9198-AFD61698FA62@gmail.com> <CAM+vMERRa4VYxJ8zDRX7wnLtQkmixA=AW6XZTW1jdL3C-PhaOA@mail.gmail.com>
To: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1508)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis (GangChen)
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: Sun, 28 Jul 2013 09:15:20 -0000
> > >> >> 3.2. Roaming to early dual-stack networks >> A roaming subscriber with IPv4v6 PDP/ >> PDN type should change the request to two separated PDP/PDN messages >> of single IP version in order to achieve equivalent results. Some >> operators may turn off the function only allow one PDP/PDN is alive >> for each subscriber. >> >> This is also likely to fail in more subtle ways, e.g. a visited network >> commonly permits two concurrent PDP, since it is usual for MMS (picture >> messaging) services to be accessed via a seperate APN to Internet services. >> Thus if both available PDPs are in use for IPv4+IPv6 Internet access, then >> attempts to send/recieve picture messages would (silently?) fail due to lack >> of PDP resourses. >> > > Your case seems assuming only two PDP activation are allowed for each > subscriber. I'm not sure that is a common case. It may be different > with my experience. Multiple PDPs are allowed to be activated if a > subscriber intends to access separated APNs. > Sorry for the lack of clarity, my intension was not to make any assumption/example of common cases; instead it was an attempt to show how the introduction of IPv6 services can 'break' other unrelated services in non-obvious ways. > Best Regards > > Gang > > >> >> /Pete >> >> >> >> >>