Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

Lorenzo Colitti <> Mon, 23 February 2015 13:49 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 802291A1B9E for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:49:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.388
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.388 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id TVZKBV0srs9E for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c05::22f]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4F50B1A1B5A for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:49:17 -0800 (PST)
Received: by with SMTP id hn18so18106078igb.2 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:49:16 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=w/QZb2um1Io5fJ0Ny8hinzVBsHTXrmt6IznRXbau+gE=; b=gzXm4C5RBqcVkLrAImnqQWpELVS+DqiALMoh7CiIC1quYu7WFmiBol+Dbz7X/ws8Qa gOTEeJt2KZl61dXkzwAzgL8gewQaP5gHrnh/1J+FaoUdDmSXAjjdssEOHfgQ52Vc9ueG olBy7E/XhbMNrrwBP8K32mDXyvYvQ6EhPN9FEYcpeGNQBbp8iRIGqutq0NzgHvLCN3y9 +Y4Cd+MF3aGxixBUNrUW0G0l/IjOsbkUq2rplTPfh0awG6g8ecYmBTcgqV5n70NklhJj tOKFEx6oS4LA0WksXYitQTsNduvN1DyGuT8YnBSoQ8aY7E+zbzAZ47tBMinCF/fqBxB/ UiGQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=w/QZb2um1Io5fJ0Ny8hinzVBsHTXrmt6IznRXbau+gE=; b=l9LFZcd8lNpobbwgHzhRuS0UOXjI43yXevjSRqOLRSB02/odBn5E4+5hZA3vaEELdb ZMKpyVJGP2MgVVCJYNbCh9XTZuFMnJE4NC6VPVt0tDBqcEiouTKz3mjqtl1ZSg69Vio/ 9gYWE9AFhzSun3mtn4qcSN7kjI522afNRpYqr5QGQvFnW6cp/T2Xeud4tS8m1u1/kSg3 WkICMjdMVHcPXFdgBPYMsEbqhyMdKLT5P+MvCUqLc0wRQlF31OXKQ6mWfuAiaYqnN7dW XY0kVZCRti2exYCXFRpZn+PAFfu/qtvuaWHKtMYeMw0JcB6cq7hMUPOjXqIdEZZMva1I PeaQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQmrENnlv51HGHG5oHne4grEQ4UlnLJmm7N4tr6Xtd+t5E09goEBYQgR4yfgyavnpzIUKirT
X-Received: by with SMTP id r11mr13226538ign.18.1424699356364; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:49:16 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by with HTTP; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 05:48:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049124F0@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912254@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049122B6@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049124F0@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:48:56 +0900
Message-ID: <>
To: "<>" <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bdca5b60ca1a1050fc1ab6b
Archived-At: <>
Cc: V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 13:49:22 -0000

On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 9:10 PM, <> wrote:

>  [Med] It seems you skipped “systematically” in my answer ;-). So, I
> confirm “we are not recommending establishing systematically two PDP
> contexts”. The default behavior is to ask for a IPv4v6 PDP-Context, but
> (1) if the IPv4v6 PDP-Context is not supported, and (2) if IPv4 and IPv6
> PDP types are allowed, two PDP contexts can be requested. The network is
> free to accept those or not. As you can see there are “if”s in this
> behavior. So to be accurate, this text does not recommend requesting two
> separate PDP contexts as default behavior, but it does not forbid it
> either.

Ok, so you're saying that in this case, the recommendation is that the
device establishes two PDP contexts? If so, then as I said before: "Please
don't recommend this unless you have evidence that this works well in
production (not in testing)."

To make myself more clear: please either provide evidence that this works
well in production, or please remove the mention of two parallel PDP

>               The text above focuses on the specification part which
>              explains the behavior for requesting IPv6-related PDP-
>              Context(s).  Understanding this behavior is important to
>              avoid having broken IPv6 implementations in cellular
>              devices.
> I find this last paragraph meaningless. What is it intended to convey?
> [Med] FWIW, the last paragraph was added as per a comment received from
> the mailing list:
> The
> point is that the set of cited specifications contains more details about
> how PDP contexts are to be handled compared to what is described in here
> (that is IPv6-sepcific).

Let me try again. You say "The text above focuses on the specification
part". What is the "specification part"? Part of what?