IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Mon, 19 November 2012 14:30 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id BD47421F855E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:47 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.874
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.874 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.191, BAYES_00=-2.599, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id iqwh5E7rXb0o for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:47 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com (mail-lb0-f172.google.com [209.85.217.172]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CD12521F8496 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id y2so4060493lbk.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:45 -0800 (PST)
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; bh=urf3RsYi+NJ4cvklLQcM43X8iczHq37UFYNDPB6MDcM=; b=Lzg/w32ofyxAthiOegSowYCxJ4y9g5KCizbaA2vobw1vhUc9xpsZ2cSUIWqdlFBY8K tLK16pimSJhnBnyOuZDK9COHGeE4u17/qZzUc8hlzrsEhtO0hExjjlvb4aynfEWk4gjb GffcVpQt0qLjcJzp+iUwZOFGcz4CDqNzBCwnjByxPMxNeSB4lstw+isb+YFF1RFc+AqL SNVbGbtgcZkXRTYzr7HJvThfdxSpekey6h2+rFOkTE9ZrCwTQcCxiLHB1g6b0xeUWWi/ c9pBK1hTLMo0mKH63nu3M/c5bqM1VTrWjQpz7xI8LbPodEL1hJs+eemkE2aO70WUTQMJ F1Vg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.112.86.104 with SMTP id o8mr5101733lbz.109.1353335445588; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.167 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:45 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.81.167 with HTTP; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:45 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr15XUGP2URO2_8+sWRCLbohhynGt2+tcaB1dOMqcws=RQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E947B1328@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0PcobuWwu+Dp36NHaFRyinD1SRV0WPk792h9EwwsuFmQ@mail.gmail.com> <17547_1353319026_50AA0272_17547_9460_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C3EF5B56F7B@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr205BrFYDRz5DqYaGJvFVhTm-YNWQPbuSD0t3rKN=wj+w@mail.gmail.com> <32082_1353321049_50AA0A58_32082_2067_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C3EF5B56FF4@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr15XUGP2URO2_8+sWRCLbohhynGt2+tcaB1dOMqcws=RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 06:30:45 -0800
Message-ID: <CAD6AjGS3UQhvrDB8tSGJS0scK2in_q=qvhk2U3y-_7KZRwButw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="bcaec554d4e87f0a9204ced9f64d"
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
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: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 14:30:47 -0000

Sent from ipv6-only Android
On Nov 19, 2012 2:40 AM, "Lorenzo Colitti" <lorenzo@google.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:30 PM, <david.binet@orange.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Besides, I do not have the feeling that there was some demand for a
RFC3316 update whereas there was some support for a document providing an
IPv6 profile, as proposed in draft-binet-.
>
> Strange. I had the opposite feeling.
>>>>>
>>>>> Does the IETF define an IPv4 profile? If not, why not?
>>>
>>> [[david]] As an operator, I would say such document would not be
required if we had IPv6 terminals. But it is not the case and we need to
get such reference even if it is not our only action to get such devices.
>
> Actually, we do have IPv6 terminals. Verizon Wireless has shipped tens of
millions of them.
>
>

Are those terminals capable of being used on any other network
effectively?  I believe the answer is no. Given vzw unique 3gpp and 3gpp2
network, their terminals are quite unique.

CB _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email