Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile

Hi,

It might be worthwhile to repeat here that last year 3GPP had lengthy discussion on transition mechanisms and if something was clear, was that there is no interest for generalized host based tunneling (IPvx over IPvx) approaches.

For hosts the 3GPP access will look like dual-stack, or IPv6-only with NAT64.

In some mail there was question of HW dependencies. It is this: in 3GPP networks layer 2 has to explicitly support transport of IPv4 and IPv6 packets (I refer here to IPv4, IPv6, or IPv4v6 type of PDP contexts). This layer 2 is usually implemented as part of modem chipset firmware, which is more difficult to upgrade than the main handset OS. Current firmwares used in modem chipsets don't always support IPv6 type of PDP context..

I'm quite confident things are improving where gaps exist.

Best regards,

Teemu
________________________________________
From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] on behalf of ext Rémi Després [remi.despres@free.fr]
Sent: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 8:31 PM
To: Cameron Byrne
Cc: v6ops v6ops
Subject: Re: [v6ops] IPv6 for mobile

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

_______________________________________________
v6ops mailing list
v6ops@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops