Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis

"Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com> Thu, 01 August 2013 20:43 UTC

Return-Path: <rajiva@cisco.com>
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 123DF11E815E for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:43:43 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -9.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-9.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-8]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id R7mdfjKKfB32 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:43:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com (rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com [173.37.86.77]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 26B5011E810E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 13:43:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=cisco.com; i=@cisco.com; l=5075; q=dns/txt; s=iport; t=1375389817; x=1376599417; h=from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:in-reply-to: content-id:content-transfer-encoding:mime-version; bh=s2QNlnJjP/0hi0MR9yH3oiSLQguI5Nb052JKYv8LriU=; b=a4tvNp4NS6JHpQ1QmCWDz4QwskYlwBRlPcl6oTZuMB0mFD1bVUMzLGoe 8DzFjXvcgPQuKF2+Zc4cPCu41JVT0DQbwOpeFe9xubZuFS75X5nCmim/k l75CSdbYFNOZPBHnndMm1tOvWubrmWGQyyEFPfacOOowzIsG4uLodpO5S E=;
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true
X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AgYFAOTH+lGtJV2Z/2dsb2JhbABbgwY1ULpog2SBHRZ0giQBAQEEAQEBNzICAwUDDAYBCBEDAQIBChQxBgsdCAIEDgUIh3YDDwyxIw2IXo0WgTQSejEHBoMTcwOTR4IvgxOKfYUngxSBaQEeIg
X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.89,796,1367971200"; d="scan'208";a="242480109"
Received: from rcdn-core-2.cisco.com ([173.37.93.153]) by rcdn-iport-6.cisco.com with ESMTP; 01 Aug 2013 20:43:19 +0000
Received: from xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com (xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com [173.36.12.87]) by rcdn-core-2.cisco.com (8.14.5/8.14.5) with ESMTP id r71KhJDN002502 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128 verify=FAIL); Thu, 1 Aug 2013 20:43:19 GMT
Received: from xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com ([169.254.6.244]) by xhc-aln-x13.cisco.com ([173.36.12.87]) with mapi id 14.02.0318.004; Thu, 1 Aug 2013 15:43:19 -0500
From: "Rajiv Asati (rajiva)" <rajiva@cisco.com>
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
Thread-Index: AQHOi6uG49XSQKP7Y0WXvaOwRHidPZl8FUcAgABTgYCABIAeAA==
Date: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 20:43:18 +0000
Message-ID: <B14A62A57AB87D45BB6DD7D9D2B78F0B2A9DE9A9@xmb-rcd-x06.cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSezZ=eOjbBwVjPyEi273tYnh_gwnDgnw901u_cvkuMGw@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
user-agent: Microsoft-MacOutlook/14.3.6.130613
x-originating-ip: [10.82.242.87]
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <F1427E1C7D5A9A418B3931D748C53E44@emea.cisco.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
Cc: IPv6 Ops WG <v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org" <draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
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: Thu, 01 Aug 2013 20:43:43 -0000

Cameron,

Thanks for the details. Is there an implicit assumption that the roaming
partners' backend system understands v6 PDP, but not v4v6 PDP?

Cheers,
Rajiv

-----Original Message-----
From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
Date: Monday, July 29, 2013 3:59 PM
To: Rajiv Asati <rajiva@cisco.com>
Cc: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>, "v6ops@ietf.org"
<v6ops@ietf.org>, "draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org"
<draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis

>Rajiv
>
>On Mon, Jul 29, 2013 at 12:00 PM, Rajiv Asati (rajiva) <rajiva@cisco.com>
>wrote:
>> Hi Cameron,
>>
>> Could you please share more details about 3a and 3b below?
>>
>>
>
>Can you be more specific about the question?
>
>Charging systems have a hard time to reconcile usage from 2 PDP
>because they are 2 separate CDRs, 1 for each PDP.  Also, 2 PDP is 2x
>as expensive in terms of signalling and licensing.
>
>v4v6 as single PDP is not viable because not everything supports
>release 8 in the GSM/3GPP ecosystem.  I tried to enable v4v6 for my
>subscribers in my central database (HLR/HSS), and adding this
>capability to all my subscribers made some existing ipv4 roaming
>subscribers fail.   Why?  Because when my users attach into a roaming
>partner network, their network downloads the capabilities of the
>subscriber from my database (HLR/HSS)... and if one of the
>capabilities includes v4v6, then the roaming partners's equipment
>drops the users because they don't understand this term.
>
>This is a roaming partner network device acting in a bad and
>non-standard way.  It's a shame i have to turn off v4v6 globally
>because of this issue.  There is one subscriber database, and because
>some roaming partner gear fails, it is not safe to turn anywhere.  One
>remediation is to limit attributes based on a whitelist / blacklist,
>but this is not feature available today.
>
>Luckily, the good people of v6ops have approved RFC6877 and Android
>implemented it in 4.3 , so single v6 PDP works ok.
>
>
>> WOuldn't the UE fallback to v4 PDP, if v4v6 PDP wasn't available?
>>
>
>Yes, it's supposed to work that way.  But, keep in mind what i said
>above.  In the real world, it does not (for now, once everyone
>upgrades maybe this wont be a problem).
>
>Cameron
>
>> Cheers,
>> Rajiv
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>
>> Date: Sunday, July 28, 2013 11:48 AM
>> To: "Fred Baker (fred)" <fred@cisco.com>
>> Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>,
>> "draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org"
>> <draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org>
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
>>
>>>As general feedback
>>>
>>>1. As others have noted, it is important to clarify that home routed
>>>is the default case and local-breakout is only relavent for IMS, but
>>>IMS based roaming and local breakout is yet to see its first
>>>deployment, and may still be years in the future for roaming to work
>>>this way.  So, local breakout is not  a real case and seems to be
>>>causing more confusion.
>>>
>>>2.  There is a hazard in assuming the well known prefix is always
>>>available.  Any device should not assume the well known prefix is
>>>available.  This is essentially a misconfiguration that should not
>>>occur.
>>>
>>>3.  What i have learned
>>>
>>>a.  dual-stack 2 PDP will never work, charging issues in the billing
>>>system, and too much capacity wasted for no real gain
>>>
>>>b.  dual-stack 1 PDP (v4v6) will not work any time soon.  Enabling
>>>this feature in the HSS/HLR breaks roaming and there is no way to
>>>ensure this issue is fixed in the hundreds of networks that are
>>>potentially impacted.  There are some backs to do on the home network
>>>that can make this easier but not exposing partner networks to the new
>>>release 8 features.
>>>
>>>c.  What does work and adds value (saves IPv4 address for the common
>>>case of not-roaming) :  IPv6-only single PDP 464XLAT on the home
>>>network, IPv4-only single PDP when roaming.  This is how i am moving
>>>forward.  The when at home, the UE has default configs for ipv6-only
>>>and when roaming the ue only attempts to connect using IPv4.  This
>>>gets the vast majority of users in my home network off v4 and keeps
>>>ipv4 for the complicated yet relatively small percentage of roaming
>>>users.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>On Tue, Jul 9, 2013 at 5:45 AM,  <fred@cisco.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A new draft has been posted, at
>>>>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis.
>>>>Please take a look at it and comment.
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>