Re: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-04.txt> (Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

[Lorenzo Colitti <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, <[e-mail]> wrote:

> I really don’t see how you can have a phone that “make a phone that works
> perfectly well on an IPv6-only” if you don’t support IPv6/IPv4v6 PDP
> context
>
You don't need to support IPV4V6 if all you need to do is work on an
IPv6-only network. That might seem like a stupid answer, but the point I'm
trying to make is that while you and I know that supporting only IPV6 will
result in the phone being incompatible with some networks *the document
doesn't say that*. The document says you MUST support all this stuff,
without saying why, and without giving any information to operators,
implementers, or anyone else on why this particular laundry list of
features was selected. That's not a good way to specify things. Look at
RFC1122, for example: every requirement is carefully articulated, with
rationale and everything else.

> you don’t have a means to make work broken applications when IPv6-only is
> enabled
>
Nobody can control third party-applications, not even the phone
manufacturer (which is why REQ#33 doesn't make sense). The manufacturer can
provide something like 464xlat, which I agree is necessary for IPv6-only
operation.

> if the phone does not follow the procedure for requesting the PDP context,
>
You don't need to do that if you have an APN database that's configured
with what the operator supports, or if you don't support IPV4V6. (Straying
back into technical discussion for a bit - from a technical point of view,
having seen the wide variety of behaviours and result codes that basebands
typically exhibit when you ask them to do something that they or the
network doesn't support, I think relying on this fallback is a terrible
idea.)

> how you can be compatible with DNSSEC, etc.
>
How many phones today support DNSSEC?


>       NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
>
>       it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETF****
>
>       standards for IPv6.  The support of the full set of features may****
>
>       not be required in some contexts (e.g. dual-stack).  The support****
>
>       of a subset of the features included in this profile may lead to****
>
>       degraded level of service (e.g., IPv6-only mode).
>
>
This is not about IPv6-only mode. That's a useful feature, and as I'm sure
you know, it's been implemented by a number of manufacturers.

Consider an implementation that implements IPv6 tethering without including
a full RFC6204 IPv6 router with simple security, ULA, DHCPv6 PD, stateful
DHCPv6 and all the bells and whistles built in. Or consider a 464xlat
implementation without a local DNS64 implementation.

I don't consider these to be degraded service, I consider them to be a lot
better than what we have today. But someone taking this document as a guide
to what needs to be implemented to deploy IPv6 would consider them to be
incomplete or broken implementations. Such a person might look at the 34
requirements and just give up, when in fact such an implementation is
perfectly capable of doing IPv6 today.