IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt

GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Thu, 07 August 2014 07:28 UTC

Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A6C621B2855 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 00:28:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id sQNNwlORweC8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 00:28:05 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qa0-x233.google.com (mail-qa0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c00::233]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 116C21B286B for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 00:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qa0-f51.google.com with SMTP id k15so3583962qaq.24 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=33JKZ8CtKwKdOjkB//coxG1zel8LrorovAWfaciMN/I=; b=O5dayjEFVivxPugo2BwpAWe34gHs0bxiW5+jvhSelI8s5N0HhqPsRwpfoW4uk5/rbJ OH6YFRFSg//CiNYnCE2K2fjEo8bNKsXYVdhQWErK3Vhk2jsBba/3Dyta2DV7xUjuFaIZ 3D887ta1lwWTsGsle7HwxHaBwyFg33obWvPYwTc+CFzcwmofSqVQYfZ7jzQEEpeIoB+Z Q89H7YTsCZgMC+iwFA8nWNGylpO8XEjaMBUi9Np4/Qg+Wg3a431clb4YtfWzZ3MzP3dx mhJ32bxha7lT532PAfzbtZDKATwPJnoyqIoJc94MCBO1RtTi8G5RePrI6aDXyyAWhLCR 1GNg==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.119.193 with SMTP id a1mr24787529qar.18.1407396484235; Thu, 07 Aug 2014 00:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.46.10 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Aug 2014 00:28:04 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <3B143C5A-875A-4E6F-B34A-A354758E1893@eircom.net>
References: <256EAE0B-5C11-42C7-BCA1-CEC7EE6713A7@cisco.com> <53DFD634.4020304@fud.no> <DE860EBC-171E-46E7-A3B6-5E8B79A453CC@cisco.com> <53DFEC6C.3010707@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGRUWxT5XiNxMi_S5VgYtGMLb_FVHXN-ZfGpcY=geix15g@mail.gmail.com> <53E06AC9.9010908@fud.no> <CAD6AjGTwt-20gXs=RUH5zbhT+g3HKrvXHX3FnShjF1srqU21Fw@mail.gmail.com> <94146541-768B-4853-A011-7558655C361C@eircom.net> <53E11795.7060305@fud.no> <DF75AC0C-098C-4EC8-9598-6F003E1887AA@eircom.net> <CAM+vMERzKa64qyUmmp8j_0e+Sxe4zXdUQwkjrRQe910=Rz+==A@mail.gmail.com> <3B143C5A-875A-4E6F-B34A-A354758E1893@eircom.net>
Date: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 15:28:04 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMERpZYt3VyWJgp_+GVsMLDj=4rp+MAts5veL2uKCQp_LQg@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pALryxgwJxq5lTiNZam0JAV-30g
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-02.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Thu, 07 Aug 2014 07:28:06 -0000

2014-08-07 14:50 GMT+08:00, Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>:
>
> The draft should also clearly make the point that the operator doesn’t have
> to yet be at the stage of offering IPv6 or IPv4v6 based Internet through
> their own GGSN/PGW.
> Ironically it is easier to let others use your RANs for IPv6 than it is to
> do it yourself.

You mean apps could use ipv6 over ipv4 to use RAN? In my experience,
it may not be able to get good performance compared to native
implementation of IPv6 support in the mobile phone. For example, RAN
performs IPv6 header compression to optimize the performance. apps
can't get those benefits.

Gang


>
> BR
> Ross
>
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email