IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 09:21 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@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 315271B2A27 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:21:42 -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 Fkc41hDIZ72b for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qg0-x22a.google.com (mail-qg0-x22a.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c04::22a]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBE01B2966 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:21:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qg0-f42.google.com with SMTP id j5so4128858qga.1 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 02:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
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:content-transfer-encoding; bh=Hgv2Lzh3GiivYNIhX2/BgtjNN2mUDWX8va1DJ/G5lXM=; b=oChSP5qlGlEEKfhTnLo+BQaSubg7y9OhkG1IDNHC+Was7fZQq+gW6xxhZAmGquijrS ebhGQZXw5Bf/go1F0yr7slUYHihE577F0sPFnr2MmIqSk6fVCdG7AI69dTj1fiMl//fc 3q4ph/zigPqwAfUWI5T5Vd+OIzbmENlWpDENVRV05RKREJ5xLyNof+g2+/idwvWKY8BQ CoXG+4GD/KdIg6bQftSGt3K70jg9r6Uvgy5jL4kIiJh0MgyvtXLN6tLcyfjEA+xc7c56 94kufQ4rFhO1hLnUjskdGZGOSUbcfF7GRkdZjTkvvNNVjAvBtYCRGO9uhHm7QQLYubWJ cDoA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.123.8 with SMTP id n8mr25322971qar.40.1407403299804; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 02:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.46.10 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:21:39 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3268A775-40CE-4FEA-9B09-846D35376ADD@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <CAD6AjGTwt-20gXs=RUH5zbhT+g3HKrvXHX3FnShjF1srqU21Fw@mail.gmail.com> <94146541-768B-4853-A011-7558655C361C@eircom.net> <53E11795.7060305@fud.no> <DF75AC0C-098C-4EC8-9598-6F003E1887AA@eircom.net> <CAM+vMERzKa64qyUmmp8j_0e+Sxe4zXdUQwkjrRQe910=Rz+==A@mail.gmail.com> <3B143C5A-875A-4E6F-B34A-A354758E1893@eircom.net> <CAM+vMERpZYt3VyWJgp_+GVsMLDj=4rp+MAts5veL2uKCQp_LQg@mail.gmail.com> <3268A775-40CE-4FEA-9B09-846D35376ADD@eircom.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 17:21:39 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMER0oV3Yi4fbqN8gN_KH_M3NK4kRTXuSJhQO0-dEiR6m=g@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/PNkYTbN-mJCY8jo5gJG39fH6vJQ
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:21:42 -0000

2014-08-07 16:39 GMT+08:00, Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>:
>

> No.  I’m noting that the first stage for a Mobile operator in adopting IPv6
> in the user plane is to prepare their RANs and SGSN/MMEs for it.
>
> When that is done an easy next step is to let visitors from other operators
> that are ahead in deploying IPv6 establish IPv6 PDP/PDN connections to their
> home GGSN/PGW.
>
> That scenario can happen, and is happening, already, as per Tore’s and
> others comments.

I guess I get your point. Whether the first stage can be done is
depending on the business contract. Let's say, if the SGSN in visited
networks can't support IPv6 and RAN can't do ROHC, the visited
operator have to pay for each function. I guess the business
negotiation is probably going to IPv4. But I guess we could try to add
sentences in the draft to state how to support IPv6-only roamer.

Gang



> Ross
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email