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

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, 4 Aug 2014, Ross Chandler wrote:

> IMHO the main utility of this draft is to create a point of reference to the gap in
> the standards created by the introduction of support for dual-stack over a single
> radio bearer in separate 3GPP Releases for PDP/PDN context creation.
> To that end I’d like it to have clearer recommendations on how to close that gap.

My opinion is not that any part of the standard is the problem, but rather 
buggy implementations.

> e.g. New HLR/HSS functionality to by default restrict the sending 
> PDP-Ext-Type/IPv4v6 with a whitelist of known good networks. Also the 
> complement the default allow sending of PDP-Ext-Type/IPv4v6 with a 
> network blacklist.

These are operational requriements, and I fully support putting them in 
some kind of document, but the question is if it's really "roaming 
analysis" anymore. The language would need to be very careful not to make 
any recommendations then (?), but rather suggest possible ways of 
working around the problems seen.

> Section 7, discussions,  says “dual-stack deployment is recommended in most cases”.
> Is that still the consensus position?  Going straight to single-stack IPv6 is looking very viable now
> when the UE supports a method of providing translated IPv4 access over the IPv6 PDP/PDN
> connection.

I don't think there is consensus here. The draft could point out pros and 
cons with each approach.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]