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.