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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Mon, 23 February 2015 14:42 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 056781A1AC6 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:42:26 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -3.961
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.961 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] 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 PZQMMjFGIn6c for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B4DB1A1ABB for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:42:24 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id E6727A2; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:42:11 +0100 (CET)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=swm.pp.se; s=mail; t=1424702531; bh=LBTanb2u4I6eHnXiXas8u4AcPMFcSsnt8dyV65GovIo=; h=Date:From:To:cc:Subject:In-Reply-To:References:From; b=MCbcR/+pZveQlxbp/leCuxuWTkDwyLvWDWkGFmHn/I1zID/CSHWcd5H55TtekXXrT q+nVckIquMlW8Fgf9olXJKwaJYDnOhZp+9WH3QRKo5RCl6D7qZCjKS/bf9F79wR/wE LJd7AVI6FghBS4ZfN+UfkBwRbNKaeSS896sVyDes=
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id DF2D5A1; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:42:11 +0100 (CET)
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 15:42:11 +0100 (CET)
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr0WNGQQ5rv=tShduSS1J+VuA+kTPomPJa9tznMyiGTffQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231530230.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se>
References: <8B808F0C-1AA8-4ABE-A06E-80652B9C1498@cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502201513320.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912254@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr3A6fzgTauLz+Yxe-xOLeDLZ5bzKBo-XyWU4i9LBSAM9Q@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049122B6@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <CAKD1Yr1c74gbnR51caf_WTKi7FFTbJP0KhwwXtabsvNhiE2Lgw@mail.gmail.com> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049124F0@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <D11092F8.1AD6E%dave.michaud@rci.rogers.com> <CAKD1Yr1ZG_rOZLCXtOjeNwAHbKzcnuRzUhitznp-5J0RP4CV9w@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231459150.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr1Zsy2PBGLLi6trssAkY6nX==5jQLyodnWz_+H1BmXaPA@mail.gmail.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1502231515290.4007@uplift.swm.pp.se> <CAKD1Yr0WNGQQ5rv=tShduSS1J+VuA+kTPomPJa9tznMyiGTffQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/aAV0drrZ77cZfh8Gl4A31qxVsIY>
Cc: V6 Ops List <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
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, 23 Feb 2015 14:42:26 -0000

On Mon, 23 Feb 2015, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:

> Sure, but even if you already have another PDN up for VoLTE, using 2 
> PDNs for Internet access is still a 50% increase in load. Again - do we 
> have evidence from operators that using IPv4 / IPv6 on two separate APNs 
> works well in production?

>From 23.401 version 12.6.0:

"If the requested PDN type is IPv4v6, and both IPv4 and IPv6 PDN types are 
allowed by subscription but not IPv4v6, the MME shall set the PDN type to 
IPv4 or IPv6 where the selection between IPv4 and IPv6 is implementation 
specific. The UE should then initiate the UE requested PDN connectivity 
procedure to this APN in order to activate a second PDN connection with 
the other single address PDN type which was not allocated by the network."

"should". So as far as I can tell, the current document we're discussion 
is saying the same thing as 3GPP 23.401. The behaviour is also what I have 
seen from "all" UEs I did testing with, so I'd say the baseband vendors 
are doing just this.

> The only operators I have heard using it said that it was very much 
> something they wanted to avoid.

Well, because of paying per PDP context (licensing fee). This is a 
negotiation between them and their equipment vendor.

If they do not want the UE to do this, then they have provisioning tools 
to make this happen (return CC50 or CC51).

Even if there is a "may" in release 8, in later versions of 3GPP 
architecture this seems to have been replaced by a "should". It's my 
opinion that this "should" makes a lot of sense and that's what I would 
like to see in the mobile-device-profile document.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se