Re: [v6ops] Worse than NATed IPv4? [was IPv6 for mobile]

[Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>]

On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, Hesham Soliman
<[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>
>>> => Yes of course, if you duplicate the APNs you have that would work. I
>>> don't know how much control you have over that but if you can do that
>>> then it will work. Of course you have to make sure your subscriber has
>>> an IPv6 capable phone and will never change it before he tells you so
>>> you can switch his APN then switch it back with his other phone ...and
>>> so on. Practical?
>>
>> I don't understand what you're talking about. I'm wondering if your world
>> is very different from mine.
>
> => I'm starting to think that as well.
>
>>>> Also, a lot of networks have not purchased the "multiple PDP context"
>>>> license so this would not work when roaming.
>>>
>>> => No that would work, your IPv6-only approach might be a problem when
>>> you're roaming. A DS host would just use IPv4 if no IPv6 was available.
>>> There are other ways of roaming in 3GPP anyway that would connect back to
>>> the home network so that's not the issue.
>>
>> Again, I don't understand what you're talking about. The phones available
>> today isn't DS, they only support single PDP context, and if I only
>> provide IPv6 PDP context for that subscriber, they will use that or fail.
>
> => Right and my comment was how would you like it if they fail? That has
> nothing to do with theoritical knowledge, you'll offer an IPv6 only PDP and
> the user might not be able to establish that, then what? You're associating
> a subscription with an IP address family. The support of IPv6 is an
> attribute of the device not the subscription.
>

IP address family is absolutely part of the subscription.  That is one
of the areas we have had to work hard on.  As the user profile in the
HLR/HSS today is defined as IPv4 PDP, we have go through and update
all subscriber records in the HLR to support IPv4 and IPv6 PDP.

We have found that enabling the HLR profile for IPv6 and IPv4 then
setting the handset to automatically attempt ipv6 PDP first and fail
back to attempting ipv4 pdp if v6 fails is functional and supports
legacy v4 roaming.

Cameron

>>
>>> I therefore see this less
>>>> likely as being implemented in real life in the short to medium term.
>>>
>>> => Not because of the reason you have above. Roaming won't matter here.
>>
>> Again, same thing. I don't understand how this would not matter. Roaming
>> is important and it needs to work.
>
> => I didn't say it's not important, I said there are ways of making it work
> regardldess by connectimg to the home network. I also said that a DS host
> would roam fine using IPv4 if v6 was not available. I don't see anything
> complex in that.
>
> Hesham
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>