RE: Call for v6ops agenda items

[<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>]

Hi Cameron,

>:)
>
>I was talking about draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-00  :)   Which i
>will state again, it is very well written, clear, accurate, and
>concise.

I have to say I was slightly confused to where you actually replied when I was writing my reply back:) Thanks for feedback on that draft as well.

But this is interesting discussion nevertheless.

>That said, i think it is very unfortunate that the 3GPP standards
>requires a /64 per PDP or EPS bearer.  It is a huge waste of space and
>operators like me won't tolerate or deploy systems like this.  /128 is
>obviously not good.  /64 is not good either.  The standards should
>allow flexibility for the operator to decide this /126 or /112.....
>Given that the standards don't allow this flexibility in 3GPP, it
>forces me to make it a non-standards exception in the RFP and product
>requirements, which costs both me (the operator) and you (the network
>and handset vendor) more money in taking out restrictions that made
>sense 7+ years ago.

I just don't see reason why that restriction would have to be changed in any way. Perhaps things could have been better, but surely changing this concept costs way much more in changes, delays, and in increased complexity than the supposedly wasted IPv6 address space can possibly cost. 

>Today's network operators have learned some IPv6 lesson along the way
>and are rejecting out-dated IETF and soon 3GPP guidance.  In the best

Hmm.. I don't quite agree on this.

>case, nothing is hard coded and network deployments can evolve.  In
>the worst case, things like /64 per PDP is hard-coded and things are
>not so easy...

Its pretty much hard coded alright, and as far as I know there are no serious discussion, or solid arguments, to change it to anything else. The discussion now is about whether UEs should be additionally given shorter than /64 and with which tools.

Best regards,

	Teemu