Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com> Fri, 19 July 2013 04:51 UTC
Return-Path: <phdgang@gmail.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 5C67711E828B for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:51:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.5
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.100, BAYES_00=-2.599, NO_RELAYS=-0.001]
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 Tpbsa2xN+y+1 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:51:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qe0-x233.google.com (mail-qe0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c02::233]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 01E8811E8282 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qe0-f51.google.com with SMTP id a11so2240858qen.10 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:51:09 -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=vmoMwbhqnRMKJsjFRKkEBXIFxcVue8gw9f+nXODAJQc=; b=cE5kvJF5nN44k+TCNiADUGWgQqkOP6Tzdie+q8tHbLa1ZOa+H3eozY3vYquGJnjf1D BI9xS1ctIHNxKIRk0qgSXF8YzgZcidoQUnKarJfaeX0Gb+2T/q8npxHJB2VY+AE+KfDn GXDU20ibNZUM0SBNwY+178v9bRfmEb9/pQYab2eLlqP3TKEeJbS+qMG0ch0akeQnCvak 9xpgnh5EemRTeUpfhz4kLDXPOUnP0tqu/tws9CNMvfkrW3RcGXYL2PJMOp0KjFk8htEo ccUjvm8S5rDmSUyKdAmA9ObmJJDF8PYwrXNvWzfF4AdtaUgpW3b+2vYAv1SpGlqwECLA RhuA==
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.94.1 with SMTP id x1mr16524073qam.54.1374209469358; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.224.182.74 with HTTP; Thu, 18 Jul 2013 21:51:09 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CE0CEDE2.50640%victor@jvknet.com>
References: <201307091245.r69Cj0Q08784@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <CE0CEDE2.50640%victor@jvknet.com>
Date: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 12:51:09 +0800
Message-ID: <CAM+vMERGcJFT4kx9UfR1yY8SWFg7x=WDF+O0YZ6PxDVibYtS-w@mail.gmail.com>
From: GangChen <phdgang@gmail.com>
To: Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Cc: v6ops@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: Fri, 19 Jul 2013 04:51:11 -0000
2013/7/18, Victor Kuarsingh <victor@jvknet.com>: > Authors, > > Dave Michaud from our technology team reviewed the document and had some > feedback. I have included it below. Many thanks for your reviews/comments > [Feedback] > Section 2, there should be a mention of HLR will add at the next version > > Section 3.1 mixes two concepts that have different causes and impacts > - The UE requesting IPv4v6 PDP/PDN Type > > - The HLR/HSS sending a profile with dual-stack enabled > (extended-PDP-IP parameter) Those are two different types. UE requests is a PDP/PDN message over GTP. HLR/HSS send a subscriber's profile including supported PDP types using Diameter. We will clarify that > > Section 3.2, there is a responsibility that is put on the UE where it > shouldn¹t: > A roaming subscriber with IPv4v6 PDP/PDN type should change the request to > two separated PDP/PDN messages of single IP version in order to achieve > equivalent results. > In reality, the UE will still request IPv4v6 but will be informed by the > network that only single address bearers are allowed (cause code #52) > along with the activation of one address type. Then and only then the UE > can go back and request another bearer with the secondary address type. the texts are changed as: A roaming subscriber with IPv4v6 PDP/PDN type should change the request to IPv4 or IPv6 where the selection between IPv4 and IPv6 is implementation specific. The mobile terminal should then initiate another PDP Context Activation procedure to this APN in order to activate a second PDP context with the other single address PDP type which was not allocated by the network. > > Section 3.3 a visited network that is IPv6-Only is not something I would > consider probable. Given that the address allocation is the burden of the > home network, The assumption is that visited networks will do local-breakout and assign the address by the visited GGSN/PGW > I really don¹t see why an operator who wants to eb IPv6-Only > would block inbound roaming using IPv4 or IPv4v6. > Section 4.1 makes an assumption about support for IPv6 that has been in > place for as long as IPv4 and it is well supported. Given that this is an > optional feature that must be turned-on on vendor equipment, it¹s not > really the case. The description intended to say IPv6-only PDP is a pre-R8 feature compared to IPv4v6 PDP. Yes, the draft should consider implementation aspects to suggest turn-on the function. > But then, this section goes on to describe that a user > could roam into an IPv4-Only network. Here we actually consider the local-breakout case. Otherwise, there are no issues if traffic would get back to home networks > > Section 4.2 I don¹t really understand what one is trying to say but there > is discussion about hard coding a PREFIX64 which could be a mismatch with > the visited network. These functions are all home network based unless > VPLMN local breakout is used but there is no mention of that. The draft should mention that the failure happens if local breakout is used. We will add at the next update > > Aside from the clarifications above, there should be a clear mention of > local breakout impacts in this document because it shift a large > proportion of the responsibility on the visited network. > > > Also, one thing note mentioned and that we use actively is a clear > separation between what the UE requests and what gets allocated by the > HPLMN. It is not enough to say ³Roaming behavior from a dual-stack > network². It can be more precise to say "Roaming behavior from a mobile terminal sending IPv4v6 PDP/PDN" > Our UEs will be requesting dual-stack to help with compatibility > but our PGW will make a selection (IPv4, IPv6 or IPv4v6). Does this fall > in the category ³from a dual-stack network²? We categorize the scenario depending on the requested PDP/PDN type. I suppose the suitable network environment is a dual-stack network. As you mentioned PGW may make further selection in the home network. I'm not sure the reason PGW supporting IPv4v6 but only select single stack ipv4, ipv6 address or home PGW only support single stack bearer, but mobile phones ask IPv4v6 PDP/PDN. Best Regards Gang > > Regards, > > Victor K > > > > > On 2013-07-09 8:45 AM, "fred@cisco.com" <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] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-… fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Alexis Munoz (Gmail)
- [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-… fred
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GT RAMIREZ, Medel G.
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Victor Kuarsingh
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Tore Anderson
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… david.binet
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… holger.metschulat
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… cb.list6
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… cb.list6
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- [v6ops] ODP: new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roa… Czerwonka Michał - Hurt TP
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… GangChen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Lorenzo Colitti
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Jouni Korhonen
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… cb.list6
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Heatley, Nick
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… cb.list6
- Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roam… Rajiv Asati (rajiva)