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

[<teemu.savolainen@nokia.com>]

Yes, that meeting and discussion before that. The host based transition mechanisms were rejected because transition was agreed to be more easily done by networks than by all hosts - and hosts were discussed to have dual-stack connectivity or IPv6-only connectivity. I agree these discussions sound echoing, they are, but for me it seems there is interest to restart this discussion again as the draft that, from my point of view, talks about host based transition mechanism called "DHCPv4 on-demand", was adopted...

In my opinion the draft can mention it is possible to build such IPv4 address on demand system, but for it to be really useful it would have to be supported by wide variety of hosts, and that is not at all certain because as said many times, DHCP is optional to implement on 3GPP access. Therefore, I'm not at all certain this sentence is really valid in wide-scale:
--
Finally, operators can make IPv6 as the default for always-on mobile connections, and use IPv4 (private) addressing only on-demand.
--

The parallel IPv4 and IPv6 bearer usage should anyhow be transitional phase until the whole network supports IPv4v6 type of bearer. Then with IPv4v6 your cost structure *relating to PDN connections* should be similar to just having IPv6? 

Best regards,

Teemu

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ext Cameron Byrne [mailto:cb.list6@gmail.com]
> Sent: 19. huhtikuuta 2010 02:26
> To: Savolainen Teemu (Nokia-D/Tampere)
> Cc: remi.despres@free.fr; rkoodli@cisco.com; fred@cisco.com;
> v6ops@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: New Version Notification for draft-koodli-ipv6-in-mobile-
> networks-02
> 
> > 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