IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net> Wed, 06 August 2014 08:34 UTC

Return-Path: <ross@eircom.net>
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 95DDB1B295A for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 01:34:16 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.553
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.553 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_BL_SPAMCOP_NET=1.347, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.001] autolearn=no
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 tk2tGrz6jH38 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 01:34:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail12.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (mail12.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net [159.134.118.28]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with SMTP id 174341B2928 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Wed, 6 Aug 2014 01:34:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: (qmail 10997 messnum 1891565 invoked from network[213.94.190.11/avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net]); 6 Aug 2014 08:34:13 -0000
Received: from avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (213.94.190.11) by mail12.svc.cra.dublin.eircom.net (qp 10997) with SMTP; 6 Aug 2014 08:34:13 -0000
Received: from mac1.home.ross.net ([159.134.196.35]) by avas00.vendorsvc.cra.dublin.eircom.net with Cloudmark Gateway id bLaA1o0020mJ9Tz01LaDiv; Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:34:13 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\))
From: Ross Chandler <ross@eircom.net>
In-Reply-To: <53E1D951.8030200@fud.no>
Date: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 09:34:08 +0100
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <6CC50159-DCF7-441F-AB57-68EF34651D45@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> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1408060856080.7929@uplift.swm.pp.se> <53E1D951.8030200@fud.no>
To: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6)
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/pNTrNT_z5dcMzRH_EdrSIlM0OMM
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: Wed, 06 Aug 2014 08:34:16 -0000

On 6 Aug 2014, at 08:29, Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no> wrote:

> Furthermore, Telenor only supports IPv6 (not IPv4), while Tele2/NwN supports both
> IPv6 and IPv4.

If it is a new IPv6 only APN, without the HLR/HSS settings to allow fallback and they’ve bilaterally confirmed with all their roaming partners that IPv6 is allowed out it is more understandable. But I’m not sure that is what this is.
 
> In spite of this I see that some providers that are using IPv6 and home
> routing chose to set the Roaming Protocol to IPv4. This is what I don't
> quite understand the reason for. Perhaps due to a misunderstanding that
> the problems IPv4v6 also apply for IPv6, or some other problem I have
> yet to come across?

The two issues that I keep seeing mentioned are: The SGSN/MME has to allow IPv6  in the user plane for visitors. 
It isn’t certain that it will. The CDR mediation system has to be not fall over when it sees a 128-bit IPv6 address. 
I haven’t heard of anyone doing anything with the addresses in CDRs. AFAIK they are usually (always?) 
discarded by the mediation system.

Regards,
Ross

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email