Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

"Heatley, Nick" <> Tue, 17 February 2015 11:31 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id CBB561A876E for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:31:36 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 0.8
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.8 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id ZwaQHIvB8RPe for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:31:34 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AF6D1A8840 for <>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 03:31:33 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [] by id 67/35-02756-39623E45; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:31:31 +0000
X-Originating-IP: []
X-StarScan-Version: 6.13.4; banners=-,-,-
X-VirusChecked: Checked
Received: (qmail 9940 invoked from network); 17 Feb 2015 11:31:31 -0000
Received: from unknown (HELO ( by with DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA encrypted SMTP; 17 Feb 2015 11:31:31 -0000
Received: from EEUKWV0940.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK (Not Verified[]) by with MailMarshal (v7, 2, 3, 6978) (using TLS: SSLv23) id <B54e3268f0002>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:31:27 +0000
Received: from UK31S005EXS02.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK (Not Verified[]) by EEUKWV0940.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK with MailMarshal (v7, 2, 3, 6978) id <B54e326920000>; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:31:30 +0000
Received: from UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK ([fe80::314c:b96c:4a9a:8a79]) by UK31S005EXS02.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK ([2002:1ef6:d01b::1ef6:d01b]) with mapi id 14.03.0195.001; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:31:30 +0000
From: "Heatley, Nick" <>
To: Lorenzo Colitti <>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:31:29 +0000
Message-ID: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AE@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
References: <787AE7BB302AE849A7480A190F8B9330049091C2@OPEXCLILM23.corporate.adroot.infra.ftgroup> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303DEA706@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <> <> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E07EE2@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK> <> <>
In-Reply-To: <>
Accept-Language: en-GB, en-US
Content-Language: en-US
x-originating-ip: []
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="_000_6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303E088AEUK30S005EXS06EE_"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <>
Cc: "IPv6 Ops WG \(\)" <>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 11:31:36 -0000

This is the game of chicken approach, I have no doubt it works, but is it inclusive to all mobile operators?
For me, it has some limitations:

-          The operator must have top down backing for a terminal policy of “IPv6 or you are out” (now that is a wildcard condition in itself); it may compromise relationships in a valuable ecosystem

-          Where the operator has high major market power helps. Where markets have a number of players ready to play the IPv6 game, there is an advantage. Otherwise the operator is very exposed to divide and conquer

-          Currently it tends to play out as a the simplest set of requirements. Which also means simplest set of network capabilities. Sometimes these simplest set of network capabilities are at odds with the business priorities of the operator (clear examples are: APN strategy, tethering approach, roaming approach, subsidised handset vs “SIM-only”)
(Not having an IPv6 capable network is a myth you are promoting to discredit operator views, it is a red herring – any operator specifying *any* IPv6 requirements will very quickly need this capability to validate terminals whatever the path they choose.)

I can see why you argue for lowest common denominator of v6 requirements.
I think your stance that this can work across the board is “harmfully restrictive”.
The other approach is understanding the differences and trying to set a slightly higher bar that highlights conditional requirements of the collective; what you call  “harmfully broad”.

From: Lorenzo Colitti []
Sent: 17 February 2015 02:41
To: Heatley, Nick
Cc: Ross Chandler; IPv6 Ops WG (
Subject: Re: [v6ops] draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile last call- "harmfully broad"?

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 10:57 AM, Lorenzo Colitti <<>> wrote:
Yes. Make IPv6* (see below) a requirement for carrier-branded devices, and give the OEMs a credible signal that from date X onwards, you *will* fail TA on every device that doesn't implement IPv6, and you *will not* waive the requirement. That's what Verizon and T-Mobile did, and it worked for them.

Also: if you think that this strategy is not feasible because you do not have an IPv6 network yet, then yes, that's true - you can't make IPv6 a device requirement until you have an IPv6 network.

But I think the key point here is that apart from the lack of 464xlat on iOS, the mobile operating systems are a lot more ready for IPv6 than you might think they are. Once the network is complete, I think turning on IPv6 in the devices does work. Orange Poland, Telenor, and SK Telecom should be able to confirm.

This e-mail (including any attachments) is intended for the above-named person(s).  If you are not the intended recipient, notify the sender immediately, delete this email from your system and do not disclose or use for any purpose.  
We may monitor all incoming and outgoing emails in line with current legislation. We have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, but it remains your responsibility to ensure that viruses do not adversely affect you. 

EE Limited
Registered in England and Wales
Company Registered Number: 02382161
Registered Office Address: Trident Place, Mosquito Way, Hatfield, Hertfordshire, AL10 9BW.