Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile

Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com> Tue, 21 December 2010 19:01 UTC

Return-Path: <cb.list6@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 641CD3A6AF1 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:01:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.638
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.638 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.061, BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GBlbQQQyCPD4 for <v6ops@core3.amsl.com>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-qy0-f179.google.com (mail-qy0-f179.google.com [209.85.216.179]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 792C83A6A07 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:01:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by qyj19 with SMTP id 19so4515464qyj.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:03:33 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=LAB9rvNKnAGFVI+bdDBiRBbP+CvxGtABX0o7Wd7Buws=; b=DWb01P9mazSeBc8Tg1msWG94vTA9Pcx5CKC0xQqoVTxVAWqXtLKignDRJkI8yAl0He EnHug3rVicr6PnMtDOiZrDr+d9ouU/zt4tiKmWpfpNRQzLzo+mmeX+jwgd+GDfI+p6Jb mfLAVSY7+dTUQ5mQJQgjd+ckwps6KgFNzN1yY=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=fM1OAGs5LiSJJrc3QcoRmywG8B+82nZr9XZmUagnISFJhU4CFz6lWWzTNcPbgI038+ 0fb+iAoiuD/kwepDFNXHx1HiK+mbK6sll7XCwI+7lpeXWTJSvn6LjDVLjQtujHX8gg3n FKmyJhxPnNUyxvDAMPI95fuMQrhNMjjy+3nxs=
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.229.215.76 with SMTP id hd12mr5355058qcb.125.1292958213302; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:03:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.229.106.214 with HTTP; Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:03:33 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <808CEB06-3536-4C51-8B24-8EBF162810C9@free.fr>
References: <alpine.DEB.1.10.1012211714510.27193@uplift.swm.pp.se> <AANLkTi=fzZzdYv2XmBcbPMdpbeZwZg9NYK-pom=2qKd3@mail.gmail.com> <CE2D8969-BB28-4321-A16A-235ED5D4B1C8@free.fr> <CAC24720-5BCC-460E-AA65-541D397E95C4@cisco.com> <1A05135C-D810-4F46-96C6-6120F8D39E46@nominum.com> <AANLkTim2ayCKYTagNRTtJwPoVd4mmxbMd7TmDi7Ef1hQ@mail.gmail.com> <90A6B8D7-D08A-4A99-B40B-FD640EB3DE0B@free.fr> <808CEB06-3536-4C51-8B24-8EBF162810C9@free.fr>
Date: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 11:03:33 -0800
Message-ID: <AANLkTim_f-9PLEU4pw=Qd+GXNKNJSDa82nOQgutVLpvZ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>, v6ops v6ops <v6ops@ietf.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/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: Tue, 21 Dec 2010 19:01:38 -0000

Thd issue here is that 6rd costs money, but gradma just wants facebook
to work and it just works today with v4.

One unofficial definition of insanity is doing the same thing (dual
stack) & and expecting a different result (deployment, even not
deployed in new LTE networks).

You and i like and value unique addresses, but the folks in marketing
that understands what common consumers will pay for do not value
unique v6, they value time to market and no new incremenatal costs
....

On 12/21/10, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 21 déc. 2010 à 19:17, Rémi Després a écrit :
>> Le 21 déc. 2010 à 18:57, Cameron Byrne a écrit :
>>> Who benefits from 6rd on a handset?
>>
>> The question you ask amounts to "what is the benefit of having an IPv6
>> global address at which you can be reached".
>> That is the question asked by those who aren't interested in IPv6-service
>> rapid deployment.
>
> Oops, I meant that what the handset gets, with 6rd in addition to its NATed
> IPv4 address, is a native IPv6 PREFIX.
> This is important because some handsets include an internal router.
> With an IPv6 prefix, hosts behind such a router can all have their
> individual IPv6 global addresses.
>
> Regards,
> RD
>
>
>>
>> RD
>>
>>
>>> The user does not know the
>>> difference and the sp does not remove any business risk related to
>>> ipv4 exhaust.
>>>
>>> On 12/21/10, Ted Lemon <Ted.Lemon@nominum.com> wrote:
>>>> On Dec 21, 2010, at 12:47 PM, Fred Baker wrote:
>>>>> Let's see if I have this right. Folks are concerned that phones don't
>>>>> have
>>>>> IPv6 on the cellular interface, and your proposal is to have the cell
>>>>> phones add a work-around service for the lack of IPv6 instead of asking
>>>>> them to add IPv6. Did I correctly understand your proposal?
>>>>
>>>> In all fairness, at least one person has asserted that the *hardware*
>>>> somehow doesn't support IPv6.   I find this difficult to believe, but if
>>>> true, Rémi's proposal makes sense.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> v6ops mailing list
>>>> v6ops@ietf.org
>>>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Sent from my mobile device
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>
>
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device