Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs

<> Wed, 11 February 2015 13:30 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2C47D1A88C5 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:30:07 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY=0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id tDuzRKQXE2SX for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1 with cipher ADH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 276DA1A88B3 for <>; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 05:30:04 -0800 (PST)
Received: from (unknown [xx.xx.xx.4]) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 42BFF26455A; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:30:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from Exchangemail-eme2.itn.ftgroup (unknown []) by (ESMTP service) with ESMTP id 1C4002380D5; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:30:02 +0100 (CET)
Received: from OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) by OPEXCLILH03.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup ([]) with mapi id 14.03.0224.002; Wed, 11 Feb 2015 14:30:02 +0100
From: <>
To: Alexandru Petrescu <>, "" <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs
Thread-Index: AQHQRepeymjVZe85zUW29rq1hiHps5zrb8Eg
Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:30:01 +0000
Message-ID: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B93300490931C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup>
References: <> <> <20150129201251.GD34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902668@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <20150130103924.GG34798@Space.Net> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004902889@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DE865D@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908DF9@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908E6C@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004908F65@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: fr-FR, en-US
Content-Language: fr-FR
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-PMX-Version:, Antispam-Engine:, Antispam-Data: 2015.2.11.95721
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2015 13:30:07 -0000

Hi Alex,

The draft includes this text: 

   Some of the features listed in this profile document require to
   activate dedicated functions at the network side.  It is out of scope
   of this document to list these network-side functions.

This I-D cannot mandate the behavior of the network side as it is up to the taste of each operator.

Saying that, if you believe there is a service/application brokenness risk due to some kind of policy enforced at the network side with regards to the management of PDP contexts and APNs, I see a value in adding a "note" to record it.


-----Message d'origine-----
De : v6ops [] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 12:03
À :
Objet : Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call - v4/v6 PDP-contexts and APNs

Le 11/02/2015 10:43, Lorenzo Colitti a écrit :
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2015 at 12:51 AM, <
> <>> wrote:
>     The document was adopted by the WG and passed both the WG and IETF
>     LCs with that scope. I naively assumed that this point is not
>     anymore an issue given that the draft passed major milestones
>     (several WGLCs, IETF LC) and the IETF consensus declared for it
>     means this is not an issue to advance the document.
> I think that assumption is incorrect, given Fred's explicit statement on
> this thread, "Before I bother the IESG with it a third time, I'd really
> like to hear a clear consensus, not a rough one."

LEt me try to understand - are we trying to identify consensus?  Or can 
we still discuss the requirements per se?

To me, the latter has its importance as well.

For example:
>    C_REC#1:  In order to allow each operator to select their own
>              strategy regarding IPv6 introduction, the cellular host
>              must support both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts [TS.23060].
>              Both IPv6 and IPv4v6 PDP-Contexts must be supported.  IPv4,
>              IPv6 or IPv4v6 PDP-Context request acceptance depends on
>              the cellular network configuration.

I would like this requirement to state that _if_ the smartphone sold by 
that operator supports IPv4 PDP-context, IPv6 PDP-context and IPv4v6 
PDP-context then the operator SHOULD support at least IPv4v6 
PDP-context, and ideally the 3 for the same APN; in all cases, the 
operator SHOULD NOT support only IPv6 PDP-Context or only IPv4 
PDP-Context per one APN.

As surprising it might seem, some operators take an approach of 
supporting only IPv6 PDP-Context on one APN, and the other two on other 
two APNs, regardless of the end-user preference; they have their 
particular reasons which may not be technical.  It is very stimulating 
in some sense (IPv6-only), or too daring for some customers which see 
their IPv6 flows interupted if switching to other APN.


> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list

v6ops mailing list