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

Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 23 February 2015 16:33 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@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 8AE8A1A1B8B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:42 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.749
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.749 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_ENVFROM_END_DIGIT=0.25, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 XG01c-yo-2MN for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:40 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-we0-x236.google.com (mail-we0-x236.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c03::236]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 161971A1B79 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:39 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wevm14 with SMTP id m14so19743326wev.8 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:37 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; bh=kcYSnHI1edYiUxxfhqYbKgcIJ7KS1AH7xrtjYpx6BnQ=; b=FYverBUnBuWaxL8I8D8zybqB2wdAwEooI2nuyyjGxnT/oTcvM361enJd7vMfqAVGy4 cIYRFkCspJBPGGtQ5src0s7nr2/z0JQ3Kgd6431EY+K2Whx7JOvA0RFaehbCDfWIqG6W I1gT4wSNfh8mOvtv08L4ptQlEIcK2dAD+fTmYMD446mraTIrMmivvvNa2uXGmZCxAdjg gBCsBvdv8MoNN7o0JxxdipR+Bypx0SdOvJDFtivm3RhPeWFkszQXy100xmFIYp+9IY1t WNmZeB0gOiULI8Ni4HJMKoFSwGr+GgFd+Gflr7t51b+85m8H1z8jjsCreHG5LviSiJBD Wscg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.92.136 with SMTP id cm8mr22434976wib.41.1424709217719; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.194.164.2 with HTTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <54EB5468.4060401@gmail.com>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <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> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231601490.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAD6AjGT1MkAPAPWe4rz1v3R60zcAX+jF02LTFSmkWt5q9qyEYQ@mail.gmail.com> <54EB5468.4060401@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 08:33:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGSxRQMGLKwxVMfHgYT7n1C38LM57+csSzPmnRSe=kXQHg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043bdef4d49c2b050fc3f6e0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PCD2cXeUoAMx3W0mCd2ymL29WzI>
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <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 16:33:42 -0000

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 8:25 AM, Alexandru Petrescu <
alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:

> Le 23/02/2015 16:57, Ca By a écrit :
>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 7:04 AM, Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se
>> <mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se>> 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: swmike@swm.pp.se <mailto:
>> swmike@swm.pp.se>
>>
>>     _________________________________________________
>>     v6ops mailing list
>>     v6ops@ietf.org <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
>>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/__listinfo/v6ops
>>     <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>