RE: 3gpp-analysis-04: Transition mechanisms at UEs; 3GPP IPv6 deployment (fwd)

[Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>]

Karim's original message was off-list, so this was my response.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 15:03:57 +0300 (EEST)
From: Pekka Savola <pekkas@netcore.fi>
To: "Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <karim.el-malki@ericsson.com>
Subject: RE: 3gpp-analysis-04: Transition mechanisms at UEs; 3GPP IPv6 dep
    loyment

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003, Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB) wrote:
>  >  2) The use of ISATAP is misguided in this space: it's only 
>  > useful if the
>  > 3GPP operator supports IPv6 (i.e. provides the ISATAP 
>  > routers and other
>  > infrastructure) but doesn't just have IPv6 SGSN's, GGSN's, etc.  This
>  > seems in direct conflict with 3GPP goals.
> 
> It is not in conflict with any 3GPP goals. Note that the 3GPP operator
> requires IPv6 for SIP-based IMS but this doc also covers generic access
> (which is where we talk about tunnelling). On the contrary it helps
> operators to start rolling out IPv6 without having to upgrade everything
> all at once. This is an important issue which we have addressed. Also,
> when a user roams to a network that does not support IPv6, 

I take it that by the latter you mean a network under that same 3GPP
operator which does not support IPv6?

>  >  3) we should be able to assume that unless the 3GPP 
>  > operator where the 
>  > user buys his service doesn't support IPv6, the user cannot 
>  > use IPv6 on 
>  > his gadget.  On the other hand, if the particular GGSN the user is 
>  > connected using IPv4 supports only IPv4, there is nothing 
>  > stopping the 
>  > user from using some other GGSN for IPv6 support.
> 
> That can't be done. The user doesn't choose GGSNs.
> 
>  >   That is, 
>  > as long as the 
>  > 3GPP operator has basically one IPv6-aware GGSN, SGSN and 
>  > HLR, IPv6 users 
>  > are happy.
> 
> That is not correct. If you happen to go to the wrong SGSN/GGSN
> you just don't get IPv6 service, independently from the fact
> that there may be another SGSN/GGSN somewhere else in the
> network supporting IPv6.

On these two issues, I keep getting mixed signals from different people 
involved with 3GPP work.  Some say it can be done, some say it can't.

I think a separate and very clear analysis with refs should be done on 
that subject.

> You have left out the issue that when we're introducing a new
> technology nowadays we don't do it all at once but gradually.

Dubious 3GPP specs (see above) are a real hindrance to deployment, it 
seems..

> That means we will have to deal with IPv6 capable mobiles
> trying to use IPv6 app.s even in areas where IPv6 native
> connectivity is not possible. If we don't consider this case
> then we won't be providing a full set of answers to 3GPP.

Or 3GPP is making expectations it shouldn't.  It may just be that we could 
say, "if you want to use IPv6, require IPv6".

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings