IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP

Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com> Sat, 04 March 2017 13:07 UTC

Return-Path: <alexandre.petrescu@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 1E3431295C8 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 05:07:59 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.353
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.353 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.001, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, NML_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED=0.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI=-5, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=-0.01, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=-0.01, SPF_SOFTFAIL=0.665] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
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 PzePun_4AVQ7 for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 05:07:58 -0800 (PST)
Received: from oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr (oxalide-out.extra.cea.fr [132.168.224.8]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id F3C6B1295C7 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 05:07:57 -0800 (PST)
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (pisaure.intra.cea.fr [132.166.88.21]) by oxalide.extra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Internet-out-2.4) with ESMTP id v24D7tFD010427; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:07:55 +0100
Received: from pisaure.intra.cea.fr (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by localhost (Postfix) with SMTP id 0BEB1204030; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:07:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from muguet2.intra.cea.fr (muguet2.intra.cea.fr [132.166.192.7]) by pisaure.intra.cea.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 005F2200BA5; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:07:55 +0100 (CET)
Received: from [132.166.84.121] ([132.166.84.121]) by muguet2.intra.cea.fr (8.15.2/8.15.2/CEAnet-Intranet-out-1.4) with ESMTP id v24D7rY5014783; Sat, 4 Mar 2017 14:07:54 +0100
To: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
References: <d1193890-0066-ad01-e521-0d9e8df065a8@gmail.com> <CAAedzxoy+=+FB=U89Fe84hDNwSdZTk0e8YYn934=V3RS3yb=DA@mail.gmail.com> <61403895-2de4-f769-2a8c-486d14a297f4@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGTgCf1qWFxcG9psVFG_nfRj2EWUoy6i7mLY_39COESsYQ@mail.gmail.com> <66d7e60b-32ec-744f-384e-ef66cc01bf8b@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQC3rpoJU=fPgmxce-1LJHYoOdJW0FEKWa6PxyRrLyN+g@mail.gmail.com> <c538a328-46ca-d2f5-afcc-395af1fdcdee@gmail.com> <CAD6AjGSUdmPSqM=VUkuA1dbfi1XA_mHpcY4v7RHhRiAgBo-hjA@mail.gmail.com> <bc036f63-9fa9-495a-f1c0-646e72cd6390@gmail.com> <CAAedzxoLTLLBt5=Ec6wV2VFcTuHRZ0Gn8C=3fL9h5uU_eN7roA@mail.gmail.com> <CAD6AjGQH1Hsqd_wZwatztWPktvh9JM-UR=GAnWsRD97Qyf5_OA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Alexandre Petrescu <alexandre.petrescu@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <40ddbe5d-991c-5043-5c51-f3ab48a5cddf@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 14:07:57 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.7.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGQH1Hsqd_wZwatztWPktvh9JM-UR=GAnWsRD97Qyf5_OA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; format="flowed"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/x7yPRgZ0uWf2kiY62t7hPfZifhg>
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] RFC7849 must not recommend 64share, and must not be recommended itself to 3GPP
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17
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: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/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: Sat, 04 Mar 2017 13:07:59 -0000

Cameron,

In adition to this release clarification that I thank for.

I would like to ask: when an operator stitches some protocol to others, 
like LAA, how much dependent is she of, say, a router manufacturer such 
as Ericsson, for example?

Could it be the case that one particular manufacturer avoids 
implementing some protocol because of IPR conditions?

Alex

Le 04/03/2017 à 07:50, Ca By a écrit :
>
> On Fri, Mar 3, 2017 at 7:12 PM Erik Kline <ek@google.com
> <mailto:ek@google.com>> wrote:
>
>     It is true that it cannot really be used to scale beyond the one hop
>     that's doing the 64sharing.  Really the use is for when PD is not
>     available (as Cameron noted).
>
>     As the first paragraph of 7278 section 1 says, PD support is only
>     even theoretically possible in release-10 networks.
>
>     I am curious to know how many 3GPP networks (a) are release-10 or
>     above and (b) support PD.
>
>
> Any given 3GPP network is not one release or another. Most mobile
> operators are effectively systems integrators that stitch together
> multiple  technologies.  For example, t-mobile usa is deploying LAA this
> year.  Does that make t-mobile a release 12 network?  Not strictly.
>
>
>
>     Cameron: is there such info somewhere?
>
>
> Not that i know of.
>
>

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email