________________________________
From: Owen DeLong <owen(_at_)delong(_dot_)com>
To: Vízdal Aleš <ales(_dot_)vizdal(_at_)t-mobile(_dot_)cz>
Cc: "v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org WG" <v6ops(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; IETF
Discussion <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; Dave Cridland
<dave(_at_)cridland(_dot_)net>
Sent: Tuesday, 10 September 2013 7:04 AM
Subject: 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
<snip>
Why is there such a push to do this?
[av] Because the Operators are currently missing such a document, so they
went to the IETF to work on one.
As written in the document the number of well behaving IPv6 capable mobile
devices is not very high at the moment.
This initiative is intended to help the developers.
Is there any reason a cellphone shouldn't just meet the standard requirements
like any other router?
I agree with this view. I don't think there is anything that special about
portable computers that that can make phone calls ("mobile multihomed hosts"*).
It seems to me the only thing special here is that one of the links the MMHH
has is a 3G/4G etc. one, and the operators of those networks have certain views
on how those networks should operate. That would seem to me to give them the
ability to select what parameters are chosen for IPv6 operation over their
networks e.g., stateful DHCPv6 only, prefix lifetimes of 2/1 hours etc., but to
extend that to listing IPv6 protocol implementation requirements across the
whole MMHH seems excessive and unnecessary. Surely the existing IPv6 node
requirements RFC is enough for that?
Regards,
Mark.
*"The Rapid Rise of the Mobile Multihomed Host, and what it might mean to the
network"
http://www.users.on.net/~markachy/The_Rapid_Rise_of_the_MMHH.pdf