On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Heatley, Nick
<nick(_dot_)heatley(_at_)ee(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> wrote:
If this cross-operator document states what is required on terminals to
work in all major/predictable IPv6 scenarios, then it is giving such people
a view of what a “healthy and robust” terminal implementation would consist
of. If they are able to deliver on these requirements then they can supply
a terminal ready for all business areas /all operator network scenarios.
It depends on your point of view. The way I see it, it's giving such people
a view of what a kitchen sink consists of.
(It certainly stops the feedback I’ve had from certain corners “that no
other operators are asking for IPv6”, and “what you are asking for is a
single operator roadmap which we won’t do”. That has been the reality
here). So I don’t see how a consolidated demand-side view from operators
who are really trying to introduce IPv6 in mobile can harm adoption in any
way.
Show me an operator whose rollout is genuinely blocked on terminal features
and I will believe you. But word from everyone I've talked to is that
terminal features are not the blocker. Operators such as Verizon Wireless
and T-Mobile in the US have deployed tens of millions of IPv6-capable
devices, and none of those devices (and, I'd argue, no commercial devices,
anywhere) implement all the features in this profile. The vast majority
only support a handful.
The main problem I have with this document is it provides one more excuse
to naysayers who believe that IPv6 is hard. The truth is that various
operators have built perfectly functioning IPv6 mobile networks which
implement only a handful of these features. But if the naysayers see this
document, they'll say "See? Told you - IPv6 is so complicated that it will
cost us a boatload of money, and it will bring no additional revenue. No
point in implementing it."