Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-13.txt> (An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com> Tue, 07 October 2014 10:31 UTC
Return-Path: <lorenzo@google.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 A10711A1B84 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:31:03 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.164
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.164 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FM_FORGED_GMAIL=0.622, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.786, 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 LBXRSYroEd_M for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-ie0-x22c.google.com (mail-ie0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4001:c03::22c]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 136901A1B7D for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:31:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-ie0-f172.google.com with SMTP id rl12so5017983iec.31 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 03:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=Thxi9zH2n44F5el6SwreG/Cx8zNBX4WsNTQ9MU3J3og=; b=c6aVgLt2MHhbGslT0wQi5W1zsoX1yoj/h9Jc/xCNq+TogGCzZ3+7Xrj79K646nZkqh X4z7uqTm43jBIFXl9prBpkLlbMPLojSU6fA3CLQ7jniQHaTlLRLeSYnvPiQmlnv4Xtvk rFrpsZmlj0+S3USbbjTvy6Wfr9XgPIu+3qkOfo1x188IWgo21CXY/e3djMNbBb4KrIeJ W5hGr5uL/Rnc3kESppdfvQXtB3QeHqxPk+M+aUU9Fz5nZIciMUIkGZUh2SNcjpUehL8r rcHzKYDXStYEBVm/KSgqg2/hXGjSvXNpewKNvPHifP6nSnjCHb8AYl7/1RuVMkXSSksR tVvA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=Thxi9zH2n44F5el6SwreG/Cx8zNBX4WsNTQ9MU3J3og=; b=Ilym+dCkYDH1dFht+Ohr3uxS4p5xdl3YpzLGO3xCUz+7xig9o3nK/VMXGBhDH1n01p si5fzGus3ueiMSPG2MFGRgQxfTnTdpJpzW3q8jkQeeMOOzcDkWpv4jVldpTQ6QaDnX09 uK9TGfweR+DY4WYBlean8QXM1AzOyoiypWo7bJDvGwMDHNkDvIuvhoyqOu/HdSoP7CZW 1Kbatme3Eap/E+P9bXuwT2TRgNN/PLxsZ9BcNh4hX8MqOrLExPJyHqfB/1A+yvihV1F8 AjLOiUpkKXBlQMP202AIvdsbTsMIsPg2rpgH0ocLrafe/J0m/wlQhDmV57GGN86/qbix lGKA==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQk36tUNhw8C9oWNDlsZRFTiTcGEDCWp9Igc8rcq9AvLKf8TstlGnm65KztYc64RSQ9bnCEe
X-Received: by 10.50.87.99 with SMTP id w3mr4218671igz.4.1412677861400; Tue, 07 Oct 2014 03:31:01 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.64.24.144 with HTTP; Tue, 7 Oct 2014 03:30:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303BDD125@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
References: <20141002154553.11969.98465.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <CAKD1Yr2d4f-eJvCbSrdZ7e=m4oCXVhABnT-cVxe16WncqRn9tA@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303BDD125@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
From: Lorenzo Colitti <lorenzo@google.com>
Date: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 19:30:41 +0900
Message-ID: <CAKD1Yr0j6c9-Xs27VXqHas_DQjV30iF3fp4AVXKGPs_UXY0+5w@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="089e0111b8541c89ca0504d2b24a"
Archived-At: http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/rlzhohmSjfrUCXxzbT-etcWGZPE
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org WG" <v6ops@ietf.org>, IETF Discussion <ietf@ietf.org>, IETF-Announce <ietf-announce@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-13.txt> (An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC
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: Tue, 07 Oct 2014 10:31:03 -0000
On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Heatley, Nick <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk> wrote: > > If this cross-operator document states what is required on terminals to > work in all major/predictable IPv6 scenarios, then it is giving such people > a view of what a “healthy and robust” terminal implementation would consist > of. If they are able to deliver on these requirements then they can supply > a terminal ready for all business areas /all operator network scenarios. > It depends on your point of view. The way I see it, it's giving such people a view of what a kitchen sink consists of. (It certainly stops the feedback I’ve had from certain corners “that no > other operators are asking for IPv6”, and “what you are asking for is a > single operator roadmap which we won’t do”. That has been the reality > here). So I don’t see how a consolidated demand-side view from operators > who are really trying to introduce IPv6 in mobile can harm adoption in any > way. > Show me an operator whose rollout is genuinely blocked on terminal features and I will believe you. But word from everyone I've talked to is that terminal features are not the blocker. Operators such as Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile in the US have deployed tens of millions of IPv6-capable devices, and none of those devices (and, I'd argue, no commercial devices, anywhere) implement all the features in this profile. The vast majority only support a handful. The main problem I have with this document is it provides one more excuse to naysayers who believe that IPv6 is hard. The truth is that various operators have built perfectly functioning IPv6 mobile networks which implement only a handful of these features. But if the naysayers see this document, they'll say "See? Told you - IPv6 is so complicated that it will cost us a boatload of money, and it will bring no additional revenue. No point in implementing it."
- [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-devic… The IESG
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Heatley, Nick
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… david.binet
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Ross Chandler
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Heatley, Nick
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Valdis.Kletnieks
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Kossut Tomasz - Hurt
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Ross Chandler
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… Jouni
- Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-d… joel jaeggli