Re: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02

[Cameron Byrne <cb.list6@gmail.com>]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr> wrote:
>
> Le 16 avr. 2010 à 16:46, Koodli, Rajeev a écrit :
>
>> the "Standards Track" part is an error - this is an Informational ID (please see previous versions for instance)
>
> I see.
> Thanks for the clarification.
>
>
>> Regarding the IPv6-only mobile deployment section: it is an important consideration for mobile networks. The relevant section is discussing what are the issues, specifically roaming and applications impact.
>
>
>> It is not proposing anything new here, but highlighting the considerations.
>
> Well, I didn't understand it quite this way (with the two following sentences in particular), so that the text can probably be improved in this respect.
> -"This is a realistic scenario today where an LTE deployment may be IPv6-only, whereas a roamed 3G UMTS network may not offer IPv6 PDN"
> -"In summary, IPv6-only deployments should be encouraged."
>
> Also, when you say:
>  "However, by taking the initiative to introduce IPv6-only for the
>  newer MNs, the mobile networks can significantly reduce the demand
>  for private IPv4 addresses."
> It doesn't take into account the following:
> - if a dual-stack MN only connects to IPv6-enabled servers (like an IPv6-only that consumes no public IPv4 address space at all), it doesn't consume any public-IPv4 address space.
> - It has a NET10 IPv4 address, which gives access to a NAT44, but never uses it.
>
> In summary, that is *dual-stack deployments* that must be "encouraged" today.
> In my understanding, this is the current IETF stand, and should remain so until more experience is gained.

Disagree.  Any solution that is dependent on IPv4 is not easily
achievable for a larger network operator. Large mobile operators do
not have enough private or public space to operate the networks they
have now.  Overlapping spacing introduces several challenges,
especially in an IMS environment.  Dual-stack also cost 2x the price
in pre-release 8 networks (per PDP pricing...)

The IETF-3GPP joint meeting recognized this is supporting the
IPv6-only + v6v4 interworking model

http://www.3gpp.org/ftp/workshop/2010-03-01_IPv4-to-IPv6_with-IETF/Docs/IPW100060.zip

Dual-stack would have been great if this were 2005, but the dual-stack
ship has sailed.  It's too late. The easiest path forward is IPv6-only
given that devices are always,  the only IPv4 space available is BOGON
or overlapped with SBCs and complicated internal NATs, communication
is any to any, connected devices grow exponentially, and major content
is going IPv6 in the next year (Google is there now, others are on
their way).  I predict by this time next year i have AAAA for over 50%
of the bandwidth my customers use.

On a personal note, for the last 2 months i have been IPv6-only with
NAT64 on my 3G mobile (work and persona) devices for the last 2 months
with not negative impacts.

Cameron

>
> Regards,
> RD
>
>
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> -Rajeev
>>
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org on behalf of Rémi Després
>> Sent: Fri 4/16/2010 6:55 AM
>> To: Fred Baker
>> Cc: IPv6 Operations
>> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for  draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02
>>
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> The informational part of the draft very clear and IMHO extremely valuable.
>> Like Mohamed, I therefore support, like Mohamed in particular, that it can become an "informational" WG document.
>>
>> As far as the proposal that "an LTE deployment may be IPv6-only" is concerned (sec. 3.3), it is more than informational (which BTW is consistent with the Standards Track intended status of the current draft).
>> It could therefore IMHO be part of another draft, but should not be included in the informational WG document.
>>
>> (About this particular proposal, I rather think that LTE mobile access networks should be all made dual stack, for some undetermined time, while those of previous generation should continue to evolve so as to become all dual stack.)
>>
>> Regards,
>> RD
>>
>>
>> Le 16 avr. 2010 à 02:08, Fred Baker a écrit :
>>
>>> I would like feedback from the working group. Rajeev would like to make this a working group document. Is there support?
>>>
>>> On Apr 15, 2010, at 3:04 PM, Rajeev Koodli wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hello folks,
>>>>
>>>> I was asked at the Anaheim meeting to clarify the intended audience for this
>>>> ID, which I have done in the Introduction; this document can be a useful
>>>> reference for service providers and network designers.
>>>> This ID does not propose any new protocols or suggest any new protocol work.
>>>>
>>>> I also got a good review from Mohamed Boucadier (thanks!) which I have
>>>> addressed.
>>>>
>>>> It seemed there was good interest that this ID is useful.
>>>>
>>>> So, Chairs: how do we proceed?
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>>
>>>> -Rajeev
>>>>
>>>> http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------ Forwarded Message
>>>> From: IETF I-D Submission Tool <idsubmission@ietf.org>
>>>> Date: Tue, 13 Apr 2010 16:30:59 -0700 (PDT)
>>>> To: Rajeev Koodli <rkoodli@cisco.com>
>>>> Subject: New Version Notification for
>>>> draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> A new version of I-D, draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02.txt has been
>>>> successfully submitted by Rajeev Koodli and posted to the IETF repository.
>>>>
>>>> Filename:  draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks
>>>> Revision:  02
>>>> Title:   Mobile Networks Considerations for IPv6 Deployment
>>>> Creation_date:  2010-04-14
>>>> WG ID:   Independent Submission
>>>> Number_of_pages: 15
>>>>
>>>> Abstract:
>>>> Mobile Internet access from smartphones and other mobile devices is
>>>> accelerating the exhaustion of IPv4 addresses.  IPv6 is widely seen
>>>> as crucial for the continued operation and growth of the Internet,
>>>> and in particular, it is critical in mobile networks.  This document
>>>> discusses the issues that arise when deploying IPv6 in mobile
>>>> networks.  Hence, this document can be a useful reference for service
>>>> providers and network designers.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The IETF Secretariat.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------ End of Forwarded Message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.ipinc.net/IPv4.GIF
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>