IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 23 February 2015 15:04 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 4DF631A00EC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:04:30 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 5EUCMCA_3GCq for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6653D1A1AA0 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 07:04:23 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id CB9FCA3; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:04:09 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1424703849; bh=FEvuGMg1/Pl6t5xWRYo93R3APL8LbOjmrINyYhyf2zs=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=hqzQzH+8EwVv+sD6YksaL2Ls/qtb9tWPerLPnRJlbald/1S7GekbY8QQDkV9TLLkm Ck4dKJMJgHcFMa/kqdHTZ6Av5kO622fI9pBp5PdAWeoXQtCwmqJGKE25R6iKg+ubql taSem0YRAwEvATJcGOpW4Vw4yUUMsKqF84+M1KZs=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id C7A35A2; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:04:09 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 16:04:09 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0Yfw_XRthJEWE+mrgqt619grLJH0BjoVeioz1GZFKOvw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231601490.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912254@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr3A6fzgTauLz+Yxe-xOLeDLZ5bzKBo-XyWU4i9LBSAM9Q@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049122B6@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1c74gbnR51caf_WTKi7FFTbJP0KhwwXtabsvNhiE2Lgw@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049124F0@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D11092F8.1AD6E%dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com> <CAKD1Yr1ZG_rOZLCXtOjeNwAHbKzcnuRzUhitznp-5J0RP4CV9w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231459150.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr1Zsy2PBGLLi6trssAkY6nX==5jQLyodnWz_+H1BmXaPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231515290.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr0WNGQQ5rv=tShduSS1J+VuA+kTPomPJa9tznMyiGTffQ@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231530230.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr0Yfw_XRthJEWE+mrgqt619grLJH0BjoVeioz1GZFKOvw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/P93XW0rYzBIj3D-vaPfsnVtSUSQ>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:04:30 -0000

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> I stand by my earlier questions. Do we have evidence that people do this 
> in production? It's not just the money - Dual-PDP is either a 100% 
> increase or a 50% increase in state and signaling load over single-PDP. 
> It also has worse fate-sharing properties (e.g., IPv4 can fail but IPv6 
> can be working, and vice versa). Is that something we want to recommend?
>
> I get it that if you're an operator, the ideal situation is that you have a
> knob to control every possible aspect of device behaviour, even if you
> never use it. But forget about that for a moment. Remember, this group is
> about providing *operational guidance*. Is this really something you would
> recommend operationally? If so, why?

My opinion is the following:

We should recommend to run IPv4v6 whereever possible to operators, for the 
reasons you provide.
We should recommend device manufacturers to follow the 3GPP standards and 
set up a second PDP context when it receives CC#52.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email