Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs

Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> Wed, 11 February 2015 14:15 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandru.petrescu@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 776301A0203 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:15:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.983
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.983 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] 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 k3KUoFiqM4Jx for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr (sainfoin-out.extra.cea.fr [132.167.192.145]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 650AB1A01FA for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 06:15:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by sainfoin.extra.cea.fr (8.14.2/8.14.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.3) with ESMTP id t1BEFH90023419; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:15:17 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 1A1D02068B6; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:16:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0E8602068B3; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:16:10 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (is010446-4.intra.cea.fr [10.8.33.116]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.13.8/8.13.8/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.2) with ESMTP id t1BEF47T029709; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:15:17 +0100
Message-ID: <54DB63E8.7020205@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 15:15:04 +0100
From: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: mohamed.boucadair@orange.com, "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <BF1BDC61-D8BD-4FB3-A111-070D9FF51F60@cisco.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DE865D@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908DF9@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1CPecjtSM6iUjgy+0hYJGKbwsiSXL-Rs3EreWXg8bAew@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908E6C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr2D3S3uGYczBmjZ2v06BXYUZRZ-zPbuueouCjTUbwehPA@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908F65@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr37-VuiCMDigTxj-dg2J3ne685Qsbg39vM6ad2B=tnYSg@mail.gmail.com> <54DB36CC.90308@gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490931C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490931C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/Ry4Mk52fSUOlCMv1peWmkBCdCB4>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs
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: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:15:23 -0000

Le 11/02/2015 14:30, mohamed.boucadair@orange.com a écrit :
> Hi Alex,
>
> The draft includes this text:
>
> Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
> activate dedicated functions at the network side.  It is out of
> scope of this document to list these network-side functions.
>
> This I-D cannot mandate the behavior of the network side as it is up
> to the taste of each operator.
>
> Saying that, if you believe there is a service/application brokenness
> risk due to some kind of policy enforced at the network side with
> regards to the management of PDP contexts and APNs, I see a value in
> adding a "note" to record it.

Note: a smartphone changing its connection between an APN-v6 and an 
APN-v4 block-restarts the ongoing applications.  This is a brokenness 
situation.

Alex

>
> Cheers, Med
>
> -----Message d'origine----- De : v6ops
> [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
> Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 12:03 À : v6ops@ietf.org Objet :
> Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6
> PDP-contexts and APNs
>
> Le 11/02/2015 10:43, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:51 AM, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
>> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> wrote:
>>
>> The document was adopted by the WG and passed both the WG and IETF
>> LCs with that scope. I naively assumed that this point is not
>> anymore an issue given that the draft passed major milestones
>> (several WGLCs, IETF LC) and the IETF consensus declared for it
>> means this is not an issue to advance the document.
>>
>> I think that assumption is incorrect, given Fred's explicit
>> statement on this thread, "Before I bother the IESG with it a third
>> time, I'd really like to hear a clear consensus, not a rough one."
>>
>> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg21229.html
>
> LEt me try to understand - are we trying to identify consensus?  Or
> can we still discuss the requirements per se?
>
> To me, the latter has its importance as well.
>
> For example:
>> C_REC#1:  In order to allow each operator to select their own
>> strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host must
>> support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060]. Both IPv6 and
>> IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported.  IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6
>> PDP-Context request acceptance depends on the cellular network
>> configuration.
>
> I would like this requirement to state that _if_ the smartphone sold
> by that operator supports IPv4 PDP-context, IPv6 PDP-context and
> IPv4v6 PDP-context then the operator SHOULD support at least IPv4v6
> PDP-context, and ideally the 3 for the same APN; in all cases, the
> operator SHOULD NOT support only IPv6 PDP-Context or only IPv4
> PDP-Context per one APN.
>
> As surprising it might seem, some operators take an approach of
> supporting only IPv6 PDP-Context on one APN, and the other two on
> other two APNs, regardless of the end-user preference; they have
> their particular reasons which may not be technical.  It is very
> stimulating in some sense (IPv6-only), or too daring for some
> customers which see their IPv6 flows interupted if switching to other
> APN.
>
> Alex
>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________ 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
>
>