Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis

2013/7/29, Jouni Korhonen <jouni.nospam@gmail.com>:
>
> On Jul 28, 2013, at 9:25 PM, GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Thank you for the comments.
>>
>> 2013/7/28, cb.list6 <cb.list6@gmail.com>:
>>> As general feedback
>>>
>>> 1. As others have noted, it is important to clarify that home routed
>>> is the default case and local-breakout is only relavent for IMS, but
>>
>> local-breakout may not be only for IMS. We have deployed that for all
>> the data roaming between different province's networks in China. It
>> offers efficient routes. Besides, 3GPP specified the SIPTO
>> architecture for roaming. That may bring impacts in the future.
>
> Just to understand this better.. Does "data roaming between different
> province's networks" mean the province's networks have different PLMN
> codes? Do these "province's networks" belong to different operators or
> to the same operator (from the administration/business point of view)?

The different province's networks belong to the same operator. The
local-breakout roaming is enabled by adding APN-OI replacement into a
subscriber's profile

BRs

Gang

> - Jouni
>
>
>>
>>> IMS based roaming and local breakout is yet to see its first
>>> deployment, and may still be years in the future for roaming to work
>>> this way.  So, local breakout is not  a real case and seems to be
>>> causing more confusion.
>>>
>>> 2.  There is a hazard in assuming the well known prefix is always
>>> available.  Any device should not assume the well known prefix is
>>> available.  This is essentially a misconfiguration that should not
>>> occur.
>>
>> Ok. You don't recommend using WKP. How about taking different priority
>> for the deployment
>>
>> High priority:  nat64-discovery
>> Medium: WKP
>> Low: manual configuration
>>
>>
>>
>>> 3.  What i have learned
>>>
>>> a.  dual-stack 2 PDP will never work, charging issues in the billing
>>> system, and too much capacity wasted for no real gain
>>>
>>> b.  dual-stack 1 PDP (v4v6) will not work any time soon.  Enabling
>>> this feature in the HSS/HLR breaks roaming and there is no way to
>>> ensure this issue is fixed in the hundreds of networks that are
>>> potentially impacted.  There are some backs to do on the home network
>>> that can make this easier but not exposing partner networks to the new
>>> release 8 features.
>>>
>>> c.  What does work and adds value (saves IPv4 address for the common
>>> case of not-roaming) :  IPv6-only single PDP 464XLAT on the home
>>> network, IPv4-only single PDP when roaming.  This is how i am moving
>>> forward.  The when at home, the UE has default configs for ipv6-only
>>> and when roaming the ue only attempts to connect using IPv4.  This
>>> gets the vast majority of users in my home network off v4 and keeps
>>> ipv4 for the complicated yet relatively small percentage of roaming
>>> users.
>>>
>>
>> Thanks for the good summary. That is the lesson we have leaned.
>>
>> BRs
>>
>> Gang
>>
>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM,  <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A new draft has been posted, at
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis.
>>>> Please
>>>> take a look at it and comment.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> v6ops mailing list
>> v6ops@ietf.org
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>
>