[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02
Hi RD,
perhaps it is useful to mention here is that this ID addresses multiple considerations - IPv4 exhaust, NAT placement, Roaming (in the context of IPv6-only models) and Fixed-Mobile Convergence.
The ID states that the IETF dual-stack model is readily applicable in mobile networks, and that's the likely deployment model for a majority of mobile providers today.
Towards the end of Section 3.1:
" In other words, the IETF's dual-stack model
of separate IPv6 and IPv4 networks is readily applicable to mobile
networks with the support for distinct APNs and the ability to carry
IPv6 traffic on PDP/PDN connections."
And in Section 4:
"The IETF dual-stack model [RFC4213] can be applied to the mobile networks readily."
Your input on dual-stack applies here (specifically Section 3.1).
Separately, IPv6-only deployments may be relatively few, but need to be looked into. In IPv6-only deployments, there can be no IPv4 connectivity (PDN/PDP) at all. Please see more below.
-----Original Message-----
From: Rémi Després [mailto:remi.despres@free.fr]
Sent: Fri 4/16/2010 8:27 AM
To: Koodli, Rajeev
Cc: Fred Baker; IPv6 Operations
Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-networks-02
> 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.
okay.
>>-"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"
What this is stating is that if an LTE deployment is IPv6-only, there is likelihood that the roamed 3G network does not offer IPv6 PDN connectivity; the emphasis is on the "may". It should be read together with
"The service providers can control their own network design but not their peer's networks which they rely on for roaming. Perhaps more importantly, the users expect similar experience even when they are roaming.
This imposes a constraint on providers interested in IPv6-only deployments to also support IPv4 addressing when their own (outbound) subscribers roam to networks which do not offer IPv6. 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 connectivity service."
I could reword the last sentence to: "For instance, if an LTE deployment is IPv6-only, a roamed 3G UMTS network may not offer IPv6 connectivity"
>>-"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.
The MN is assumed to be dual-stack. With IPv6-only mobile network deployments, the MN is only allowed to activate the IPv6 PDN/PDP connection.
So, there is no IPv4 connectivity even though the MN is dual-stack. As I explain in the ID, the MN will likely need this dual-stack capability during roaming (when the roamed network does not support IPv6 connectivity).
>>- It has a NET10 IPv4 address, which gives access to a NAT44, but never uses it.
Same consideration as above. Since the network offered connectivity (i.e., PDN/PDP) is IPv6-only, there is no IPv4 connectivity/addressing.
Note that this is a deployment model that some providers may consider, but it comes with the issues associated with roaming and applications.
>>In summary, that is *dual-stack deployments* that must be "encouraged" today.
Sure, dual-stack is not only encouraged but the *recommended* model. This is captured in the ID (as I mentioned above):
" In other words, the IETF's dual-stack model
of separate IPv6 and IPv4 networks is readily applicable to mobile
networks with the support for distinct APNs and the ability to carry
IPv6 traffic on PDP/PDN connections."
>>In my understanding, this is the current IETF stand, and should remain so until more experience is gained.
Dual-stack is the recommended model. I am suggesting *encouraging* IPv6-only models modulo considerations described in Section 3.3
I could reword "In summary, IPv6-only deployments should be encouraged." to
"In summary, IPv6-only deployments should be encouraged while considering the roaming and applications issues"
Thanks again,
-Rajeev
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
>>
>>
>
>
>