IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Mon, 04 August 2014 16:19 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
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 146801A03FF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:19:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] 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 6fPO9LIohWCh for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:19:13 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail06.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail06.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.22]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 3DBB41B2B93 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 4 Aug 2014 09:19:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 86681 messnum 12627610 invoked from network[213.94.190.14/avas02.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 4 Aug 2014 16:19:03 -0000
Received: from avas02.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.14) by mail06.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 86681) with SMTP; 4 Aug 2014 16:19:03 -0000
Received: from mac1.home.ross.net ([159.134.196.35]) by avas02.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id agJz1o02M0mJ9Tz01gK3Jb; Mon, 04 Aug 2014 17:19:03 +0100
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_4F9EE34D-AAE2-4B8E-957A-BEF3846AE976"
Message-Id: <8E890204-B4A8-4EDC-BFF6-FC33A2C30FC6@eircom.net>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
Date: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 17:18:56 +0100
References: <20140804010755.5662.75071.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAM+vMETtTvs9oeNtg5T7ReyyH1o3g7VXtpG+g-3bKbm6dpAoEQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: v6ops@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMETtTvs9oeNtg5T7ReyyH1o3g7VXtpG+g-3bKbm6dpAoEQ@mail.gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/X5JSmGXotrDP-nxygfptjgTQ7Fc
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt
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: Mon, 04 Aug 2014 16:19:16 -0000

On 4 Aug 2014, at 02:11, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:

> WG,
> 
> We have uploaded the new draft according to the comments received so far.
> Please kindly check.
> 
> Many thanks
> 
> Gang

Hi All,

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.

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.

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. 

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email