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

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.

Cheers,
Med

-----Message d'origine-----
De : v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] De la part de Alexandru Petrescu
Envoyé : mercredi 11 février 2015 12:03
À : v6ops@ietf.org
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, <mohamed.boucadair@orange.com
> <mailto:mohamed.boucadair@orange.com>> 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."
>
> https://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg21229.html

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.

Alex

>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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