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

Czerwonka Michał - Hurt TP <Michal.Czerwonka1@orange.com> Mon, 29 July 2013 11:34 UTC

Return-Path: <Michal.Czerwonka1@orange.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 E409211E80DF for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:34:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: 1.386
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.386 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_PL=1.135, HOST_EQ_PL=1.95, J_CHICKENPOX_13=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3]
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 ZhofAnad4k+F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:34:02 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mailin.tpsa.pl (mailout.tpsa.pl [212.160.172.10]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 34B7D11E80DC for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 04:34:01 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from 10.236.62.153 (EHLO OPE10HT05.tp.gk.corp.tepenet) ([10.236.62.153]) by mailin.tpsa.pl (MOS 3.10.10a-GA FastPath queued) with ESMTP id DZL92465; Mon, 29 Jul 2013 13:33:55 +0200 (CEST)
From: Czerwonka Michał - Hurt TP <Michal.Czerwonka1@orange.com>
To: "cb.list6" <cb.list6@gmail.com>, Fred Baker <fred@cisco.com>
Thread-Topic: [v6ops] new draft: draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis
Thread-Index: AQHOfKI8X61wIhyu9k636KHEY2pjHJl6OO6AgAFsNxA=
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:33:54 +0000
Message-ID: <2D29C51862222E49B991EF64EEB0B5B745F1E311@OPE10MB05.tp.gk.corp.tepenet>
References: <201307091245.r69Cj0Q08784@ftpeng-update.cisco.com> <CAD6AjGSPgs8JzN7yuPUVSr1Pz5POY6JsMo0_33zK3Kn++RxBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGSPgs8JzN7yuPUVSr1Pz5POY6JsMo0_33zK3Kn++RxBBQ@mail.gmail.com>
Accept-Language: pl-PL, en-US
Content-Language: pl-PL
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-2"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Junkmail-Status: score=10/50, host=mailin.tpsa.pl
X-Junkmail-SD-Raw: score=unknown, refid=str=0001.0A090206.51F65324.0016, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-09 01:15:44, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27, mode=multiengine
X-Junkmail-IWF: false
X-Mirapoint-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A090206.51F65324.0016, ss=1, fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2010-07-09 01:15:44, dmn=5.7.1/2009-08-27
X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 65bb3c5969f1fc8e5841b645bfd44224
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: [v6ops] ODP: 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: Mon, 29 Jul 2013 11:34:07 -0000

+1

NO IPv6 in roaming :(

BR,
Mcz




-----Wiadomość oryginalna-----
Od: v6ops-bounces@ietf.org [mailto:v6ops-bounces@ietf.org] W imieniu cb.list6
Wysłano: 28 lipca 2013 17:48
Do: Fred Baker
DW: IPv6 Ops WG; draft-chen-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis@tools.ietf.org
Temat: 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