Re: [v6ops] Operational Consensus on deployment

[Mikael Abrahamsson <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, 5 Aug 2014, Tore Anderson wrote:

> To be honest I've never quite understood what all the fuss is about 
> regarding IPv6 and 3GPP roaming. My personal experience, having been a 
> customer of Tele 2 Norway (formerly Network Norway) using their IPv6 
> pilot for about two years, then moving to Telenor about six months ago, 
> is that IPv6 roaming Just Works.

I've heard reports of platforms in use in southeast asia, I don't remember 
if it was Korea or some other country, would fail when presented with 
IPv4v6 capability.

The reason why people are not going for IPv4v6 externally is because it 
breaks things, badly, it seems, due to bugs. So this is why IPv6 only 
bearer is so appealing, because it's been around for 5-10 years and very 
few things break with it.

> I've not visited every country in the world, but I have been around a 
> bit, and I've made a point out of trying to establish an IPv6 data 
> bearer to every single PLMN I can register with. So far I've had 100% 
> success, including on Cameron's network... Thus enabling IPv6 roaming 
> doesn't seem like a scary proposition to me. I'm guessing perhaps 
> Telenor came to the same conclusion.

The scary part isn't enabling IPv6, it's enabling IPv4v6 or capability to 
do so. When advertised as capability to visiting SGSN it might refuse to 
bring up any bearer at all. So this is why the draft suggests it might be 
a good idea to not advertise this to roaming partners.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [e-mail]