Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call

Dave Michaud <> Mon, 23 February 2015 14:45 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id EA0761A1AD0 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:45:21 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.902
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.902 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id vlW0vc0QwRok for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2a01:111:f400:fc10::750]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 930901A1AC6 for <>; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 06:45:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( by ( with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:45:01 +0000
Received: from ([]) by ([]) with mapi id 15.01.0093.004; Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:45:01 +0000
From: Dave Michaud <>
To: Gert Doering <>, Mikael Abrahamsson <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
Date: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:45:01 +0000
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B933004912254@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049122B6@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049124F0@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <20150223141204.GU34798@Space.Net>
In-Reply-To: <20150223141204.GU34798@Space.Net>
Accept-Language: en-CA, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/
x-originating-ip: []
authentication-results: spf=none (sender IP is );
x-microsoft-antispam: BCL:0;PCL:0;RULEID:;SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1066;
x-microsoft-antispam-prvs: <>
x-exchange-antispam-report-test: UriScan:;
x-exchange-antispam-report-cfa-test: BCL:0; PCL:0; RULEID:; SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1066;
x-forefront-prvs: 0496DF6962
x-forefront-antispam-report: SFV:NSPM; SFS:(10019020)(979002)(6009001)(189002)(51704005)(377424004)(199003)(24454002)(62966003)(2950100001)(92566002)(77156002)(19273905006)(101416001)(2900100001)(87936001)(102836002)(15975445007)(40100003)(122556002)(2656002)(68736005)(93886004)(83506001)(19580395003)(19580405001)(46102003)(15974865002)(230783001)(106116001)(76176999)(106356001)(86362001)(74826001)(97736003)(105586002)(99286002)(66066001)(64706001)(50986999)(54356999)(969003)(989001)(999001)(1009001)(1019001); DIR:OUT; SFP:1102; SCL:1; SRVR:CY1PR0401MB1066;; FPR:; SPF:None; PTR:InfoNoRecords; MX:1; A:0; LANG:en;
received-spf: None ( does not designate permitted sender hosts)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-ID: <>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-originalarrivaltime: 23 Feb 2015 14:45:01.3300 (UTC)
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-fromentityheader: Hosted
X-MS-Exchange-CrossTenant-id: 0ab4cbbf-4bc7-4826-b52c-a14fed5286b9
X-MS-Exchange-Transport-CrossTenantHeadersStamped: CY1PR0401MB1066
Archived-At: <>
Cc: V6 Ops List <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call
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: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 14:45:22 -0000

The technicality here is that CC50, CC51 and CC52 are returned not as a
failure but as a success with an IP address allocated.

So CC52 is returned with either an IPv4 or an IPv6 address allocated by
the network with the onus on the UE to proceed with a subsequent request
to establish the alternate PDP type.

For CC50 and CC51, they are also returned with the selected PDP type (and
allocated IP address) and it tells the UE that the alternate PDP type will
be rejected by the network (so the UE is not to proceed further).

Dave Michaud
Sr. Architect Mobility ­ Access Networks & IP Network Services
Network Technology | Rogers Communications | tel: +1 647.747.9442 | mobile: +1

On 2015-02-23, 09:12, "Gert Doering" <> wrote:

>On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 03:01:43PM +0100, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>> I don't agree. I agree with the above description of the CC52 code, and
>> definitely want (and expect) the UE to set up a second PDP context in
>> it gets CC52.
>> How else should the network signal to the UE that it should bring up a
>> second PDP context?
>Actually I read CC52 as "no, we do not have IPv4IPv6, but you are free
>to bring up either IPv4 or IPv6 PDP!" (as opposed to CC50 and CC51 that
>are telling specifically which one to use).  Is that not what is intended?
>Gert Doering
>        -- NetMaster
>have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
>Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
>D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
>Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>v6ops mailing list

This communication is confidential. We only send and receive email on the basis of the terms set out at<>

Ce message est confidentiel. Notre transmission et réception de courriels se fait strictement suivant les modalités énoncées dans l’avis publié à <>