ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: [v6ops] Last Call: <draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile-13.txt> (An Internet Protocol Version 6 (IPv6) Profile for 3GPP Mobile Devices) to Informational RFC

2014-10-07 10:42:23



On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Heatley, Nick 
<nick(_dot_)heatley(_at_)ee(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk<mailto: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.
[DB] Maybe you are right, maybe not.

(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.
[DB] Do we consider that all features are mandatory in the draft ? Not at all 
and it demonstrates that RFC 2119 terminology is useful. Whatever you think, it 
is still a problem to get some IPv6-ready devices and that explains why some 
on-going IPv6 deployment still rely on some limited number of devices in some 
areas. The document will not solve everything but it could help some operators 
to discuss with vendors about their requirements, as it has been mentioned by 
several ones on this mailing list.

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."
[DB] Operators do not need any excuse for some strategy elaboration. And the 
document does not add any new hurdles for IPv6 deployment since it list some 
requirements based on existing specifications. We should speak for ourselves 
and should not imagine how other people will consider such document.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations 
confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc
pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce 
message par erreur, veuillez le signaler
a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages 
electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration,
Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou 
falsifie. Merci.

This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged 
information that may be protected by law;
they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation.
If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete 
this message and its attachments.
As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been 
modified, changed or falsified.
Thank you.

<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>