IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Thu, 07 August 2014 09:41 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 30F251A01EA for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:41:25 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.9
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=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 3mlbkzCuSycC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:41:23 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail09.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail09.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.25]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 372951A0648 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 02:41:22 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 87099 messnum 5670159 invoked from network[213.94.190.12/avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 7 Aug 2014 09:41:22 -0000
Received: from avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.12) by mail09.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 87099) with SMTP; 7 Aug 2014 09:41:22 -0000
Received: from mac1.home.ross.net ([159.134.196.35]) by avas01.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id blhH1o00W0mJ9Tz01lhMPP; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:41:22 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <CAM+vMER0oV3Yi4fbqN8gN_KH_M3NK4kRTXuSJhQO0-dEiR6m=g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 10:41:16 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <EA39F0F9-3006-4DF8-9277-CFE288D2F41D@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <CAD6AjGTwt-20gXs=RUH5zbhT+g3HKrvXHX3FnShjF1srqU21Fw@mail.gmail.com> <94146541-768B-4853-A011-7558655C361C@eircom.net> <53E11795.7060305@fud.no> <DF75AC0C-098C-4EC8-9598-6F003E1887AA@eircom.net> <CAM+vMERzKa64qyUmmp8j_0e+Sxe4zXdUQwkjrRQe910=Rz+==A@mail.gmail.com> <3B143C5A-875A-4E6F-B34A-A354758E1893@eircom.net> <CAM+vMERpZYt3VyWJgp_+GVsMLDj=4rp+MAts5veL2uKCQp_LQg@mail.gmail.com> <3268A775-40CE-4FEA-9B09-846D35376ADD@eircom.net> <CAM+vMER0oV3Yi4fbqN8gN_KH_M3NK4kRTXuSJhQO0-dEiR6m=g@mail.gmail.com>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/elPQdhuEW-jY0WprVEPwuQby6gY
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 09:41:25 -0000

On 7 Aug 2014, at 10:21, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> I guess I get your point. Whether the first stage can be done is
> depending on the business contract. Let's say, if the SGSN in visited
> networks can't support IPv6 and RAN can't do ROHC, the visited
> operator have to pay for each function. I guess the business
> negotiation is probably going to IPv4. But I guess we could try to add
> sentences in the draft to state how to support IPv6-only roamer.
> 

Yes, I think we should.


On the commercial aspects RFC 6540 requires IPv6 support in all IP-Capable nodes. 

So I assume vendors will support the default IP protocol and not look for extra payments on top of business as usual spending.

My own experience was that all the features I need (except the HLR PDP-Ext-Type restriction) were just there.

Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email