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

<> Mon, 19 November 2012 12:11 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0EBC921F85EB for <>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:11:58 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.824
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.824 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.108, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_FR=0.35, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id lnasbHu88AbI for <>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:11:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id D8CDF21F85E1 for <>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 04:11:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.3]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id E28E7264133; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:11:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id A6E744C071; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:11:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:11:52 +0100
From: <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>, BINET David OLNC/OLN <>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:11:51 +0100
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
Thread-Index: Ac3GQlI7i8bRReCcSKiZJkJFKZQ5cwAAF/fQ
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <> <> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR
Content-Language: fr-FR
acceptlanguage: fr-FR
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E9751E703PUEXCB1Bnante_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2012.10.24.110314
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 12:11:58 -0000

Dear Lorenzo,

Since we first submitted draft-binet-*, which says explicitly it is intended to update rfc3316,  no one complained in the mailing list about the structure of the draft to follow rfc3316 structure but instead there were constructive technical discussions to clarify several of the requirements, to propose new ones, etc. There were several voices to support this effort.

We are happy to see draft-binet-* revived the discussion about rfc3316 update and helped authors of draft-jouni-* to publish their document...

We didn't adopted rfc3316 structure because we wanted a comprehensive list of IPv6 features required to have acceptable IPv6 implementations which can be connected to a cellular network.

There are several IPv6 implementations but some of these implementations are broken (e.g., see the issue raised by Tore in this thread). We hope draft-binet-* will help in this area.

The rationale adopted in draft-binet-* is not new to v6ops...similar effort was carried out to define the CPE profile.


De : Lorenzo Colitti []
Envoyé : lundi 19 novembre 2012 11:40
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:30 PM, <<>> 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.