Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Thu, 12 February 2015 19:39 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 642D01A1BCD for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:39:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.909
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.909 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, 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 8TYWMQW7b2b9 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:39:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.16]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id E361B1A1C02 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 11:39:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 63612 messnum 2468176 invoked from network[213.94.190.11/avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 12 Feb 2015 19:39:11 -0000
Received: from avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.11) by mail00.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 63612) with SMTP; 12 Feb 2015 19:39:11 -0000
Received: from [192.168.1.1] ([86.43.35.194]) by avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id rXf81p00J4BK5ly01XfBWn; Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:39:11 +0000
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <54DCD464.3000907@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Feb 2015 19:39:08 +0000
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <5A769BF0-2A4C-4BA0-88DD-96D94514021D@eircom.net>
References: <20150212124226.3282.9774.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <54DCD464.3000907@gmail.com>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/fs6dh0WVf7ndf3NUGzwPBbqxr6Q>
Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-17.txt - C_REC#9 464XLAT
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, 12 Feb 2015 19:39:21 -0000

> On 12 Feb 2015, at 16:27, Alexandru Petrescu <alexandru.petrescu@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Thank you for this new version of the draft.
> 
> I have a doubt with respect to the 464XLAT requirement:
>>   C_REC#9:  In order to ensure IPv4 service continuity in an IPv6-only
>>             deployment context, the cellular host should implement the
>>             Customer Side Translator (CLAT, [RFC6877]) function which
>>             is compliant with [RFC6052][RFC6145][RFC6146].
>> 
>>                CLAT function in the cellular host allows for IPv4-only
>>                application and IPv4-referals to work on an IPv6-only
>>                connectivity.  CLAT function requires a NAT64 capability
>>                [RFC6146] in the core network.
>> 
>>                The IPv4 Service Continuity Prefix used by CLAT is
>>                defined in [RFC7335].
> 
> I think this requirement leads to a situation where the network operator deploys IPv6-native-only and IPv4 as an add-on partial feature.
> 
> On one hand, it is encouraging to see native IPv6 and no IPv4.
> 
> On another hand, _partial_ IPv4 support is a temptation which deceives in the end -  it leads to turn off IPv6 and come back to good ol' IPv4 and no IPv6.
> 
> The 464XLAT is partial IPv4 support: does not offer full IPv4 connectivity to the smartphone.  It is not possible to address the smartphone by its IPv4 address - DNS is required; this makes it impossible to make a VPN tunnel, or Mobile IP.  One can not a deploy a wireless IPv4 router along the road in a remote area, for example.

Alex,

Are you saying all VPNs impossible or just ones not that don’t go through NAPT because they don’t use TCP/UDP or something else? Openvpn and IPSec over TCP/UDP work. In the pure IPv4 case their can also be problems with PPTP if the CGN doesn’t have an ALG.

> This leads to a situation where the operator requires end user to switch to another APN which is less IPv6.
> 
> I think it is not a happy situation.
> 
> I would  suggest to qualify this requirement by another requirement. This initial requirement would state that _first_, before any v4-v6 conversion mechanism is considered, both the network and the end user MUST implement a native IPv4 stack and a native IPv6 stack (not say 'dual' stack, which is much overloaded).
> 
> We dont want to block IPv4 use when IPv6 arrives.
> 
> Alex

Perhaps it could be clarified in C_REC#9 that the IPv6-only deployment context refers to the 3GPP device? The data APN it accesses could support IPv4, IPv6 and dual-stack IPv4v6 PDP/PDNs.




BR
Ross