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

[Ca By <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <
[e-mail]> wrote:

> Le 23/02/2015 16:57, Ca By a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]
>> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     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.
>>
>>
>> i don't see how we, v6ops,  can recommend operators deploy ipv4
>> addresses that are not available.
>>
>
> Cameron - these addresses _are_ available, they're NATted anyways.
>
> I know the IPv4 exhaustion problem, but it does not apply here: that
> problem is a _publicly_ routable IPv4 address problem, not a private
> routable address problem. One can have larger than 2^32 networks
> entirely on IPv4 with multiple NATs and/or traffic engineering.
>
>
I don't think the IETF is willing to recommend what you have described
above.


> One would appreciate an IPv4 private address with IPv4IPv6-type rather
> than an IPv6-only type.
>
>

Not this "one".  But, you can run your network how you like.



 Should we include an appendix listing ipv4 brokers they can contact?
>>
>
> YEs, it is good to have such a list in one place. Do they do this
> automatically or does one have to fill in forms?
>
>  Oh, and don't forget the v6ops is also publishing this
>>
>> https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-07
>>
>> Quoting:
>>
>> "In the network attachment stage, PDP/PDN type IPv4v6 is the major
>>
>>     concern to the visited pre-Release 9 SGSN. 3GPP didn't specify PDP/
>>     PDN type IPv4v6 in the earlier releases.  That PDP/PDN type is
>>     supported in new-built EPS network, but isn't supported well in the
>>     third generation network."
>>
>
> So the network should be updated to support IPv4IPv6 type.
>
>
This advice you provide has not been deployed in production.

CB

> Alex
>
>
>>
>> CB
>>
>>     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: [e-mail] <mailto:
>> [e-mail]>
>>
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     v6ops mailing list
>>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/v6ops
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> [e-mail]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>