IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz> Mon, 19 November 2012 21:51 UTC

Return-Path: <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 195A621F8552 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:51:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.806
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.806 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.828, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_CZ=0.445, HOST_EQ_CZ=0.904, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-1, SARE_MILLIONSOF=0.315]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZxHEPM0Ir0ay for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mailhub1.t-mobile.cz (mailhub1.t-mobile.cz [62.141.0.149]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1674821F8885 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 13:51:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from srvhk503.rdm.cz (unknown [10.254.92.81]) by mailhub1.t-mobile.cz (Postfix) with ESMTP id CE9232857EE; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:51:33 +0100 (CET)
Received: from SRVHKE02.rdm.cz ([fe80::94ce:8456:f6fa:86a8]) by srvhk503.rdm.cz ([fe80::a0bc:fdcc:adf9:5f66%12]) with mapi; Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:51:33 +0100
From: Vízdal Aleš <ales.vizdal@t-mobile.cz>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>, "david.binet@orange.com" <david.binet@orange.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 22:51:08 +0100
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
Thread-Index: Ac3GQmMYFQau+nDgTs+A9T0ghVcR3wAXNL+Q
Message-ID: <1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC6CF6EA652@SRVHKE02.rdm.cz>
References: <94C682931C08B048B7A8645303FDC9F36E947B1328@PUEXCB1B.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr0PcobuWwu+Dp36NHaFRyinD1SRV0WPk792h9EwwsuFmQ@mail.gmail.com> <17547_1353319026_50AA0272_17547_9460_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C3EF5B56F7B@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr205BrFYDRz5DqYaGJvFVhTm-YNWQPbuSD0t3rKN=wj+w@mail.gmail.com> <32082_1353321049_50AA0A58_32082_2067_1_1B2E7539FECD9048B261B791B1B24A7C3EF5B56FF4@PUEXCB1A.nanterre.francetelecom.fr> <CAKD1Yr15XUGP2URO2_8+sWRCLbohhynGt2+tcaB1dOMqcws=RQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKD1Yr15XUGP2URO2_8+sWRCLbohhynGt2+tcaB1dOMqcws=RQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_1808340F7EC362469DDFFB112B37E2FCC6CF6EA652SRVHKE02rdmcz_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-CFilter-Loop: Forwarded
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/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: Mon, 19 Nov 2012 21:51:36 -0000


From: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti
Sent: Monday, November 19, 2012 11:40 AM
To: david.binet@orange.com
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-binet-v6ops-cellular-host-requirements-00.txt

On Mon, Nov 19, 2012 at 7:30 PM, <david.binet@orange.com<mailto:david.binet@orange.com>> wrote:
Besides, I do not have the feeling that there was some demand for a RFC3316 update whereas there was some support for a document providing an IPv6 profile, as proposed in draft-binet-.
Strange. I had the opposite feeling.
Does the IETF define an IPv4 profile? If not, why not?
[[david]] As an operator, I would say such document would not be required if we had IPv6 terminals. But it is not the case and we need to get such reference even if it is not our only action to get such devices.

[ales] As an operator I *need* IPv6 profile document I can refer vendors to, you see other operators on the list requesting the same, so it is clearly an issue operators are trying
to address here. Honestly, I am still not getting what's wrong with this document intended to be a requirements list such as 6204(bis).

Actually, we do have IPv6 terminals. Verizon Wireless has shipped tens of millions of them.

[ales] No, we don't and that's why we see the need to spend our efforts writing this requirements document. If we had them, we wouldn't be here.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email