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

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

> I think the draft, now that it is WG draft, should reflect the conclusions that have been already achieved and not restart transition mechanism selection discussions...
>

When you say conclusion, you mean the conclusion from the 3GPP-IETF
meeting in San Francisco?  Which is dual-stack AND IPv6-only as
solutions?  Lets make sure the drafts currently being developed
reflect that to the best extent possible.  The San Francisco meeting
was very meaningful for me since it was the first time the larger
community began to grasp the notion that IPv6-only is feasible and
real.

Regarding cost per PDP, i have told the list how it is in my case, 2x
the cost for 3GPP dual-stack.  Look at it from a pricing contract
perspective or signalling load on core elements, the result is 2x the
PDP is 2x the cost.  I am not sure who you are talking to or what the
context is when you say PDP is cheap, but we all know smartphone are
overwhelming signalling load these days, especially PDP setup and
tear-down (battery saving technique).  Some service providers pay for
ALL of their infrastructure in the packet core based on PDP numbers,
just as they pay for all their circuit switched infrastructure based
on busy hour call attempts.  Sometimes it is a simple PDP license fee
mix ($5 per PDP per quarter) with capital purchases ($10 million per
GGSN kit).  There are many variation, but i am not aware of any SP
that would say 2x PDP is acceptable without 2x the revenue.  I 100%
assure you the cost per PDP is NOT trivial, and the increased
signalling from 2x the PDP attach and 2x the mobility events will be
substantial. Especially considering the revenue per byte is eroding,
service providers are very adverse to changes that drive up costs.  If
another network operator posts to the list and says they have a
different cost structure and contract where PDP is trivial (in
contract, in signalling, in capacity ...), great lets here from them
directly as another data point.

Ii am not interested in any new methods (DS-lite ...), they have their
place, but it is not appealing to the mobile scenario (handset impact)
and their time to market is variable.  As mentioned, i really don't
need any new technology to make my own path work.  IPv6-only works
today with NAT64/DNS64, we demonstrated to the IETF-3GPP in San
Francisco and our friendly user trial is growing as IPv6-only,
products are planned for IPv6-only.  What Rajeev adds makes things
clearer and defines a possible path for covering some corner cases.

Also, very important, Rajeev does state that the IPv6-only path exists
and is viable, which is something none of the other drafts on 3G/4G
IPv6 do to a meaningful extent.  This is a shame considering the
results of the San Francisco meeting.  The impression i get is that
most of the drafts see IPv6-only as a niche for M2M and not the
general Internet access case.  In saying that IPv6-only should be
encouraged, Rajeev is faithfully reflecting the 3GPP-IETF community's
official San Francisco meeting summary as well as championing the need
for service providers and vendors to aggressively pursue the urgent
need for IPv6 as a mainstream network protocol.

I am starting to feel like this thread is becoming an echo chamber
with the same people saying the same things.

Cameron