RE: 3gpp-analysis-05: miscellaneous non-critical issues

[<Andreas.Schmid1@swisscom.com>]

> >  > My point of removing "native or tunneled" is that because
> >  > there should not 
> >  > be any (or close to any) tunneled connectivity (from the UE) 
> >  > in the first 
> >  > place, pointing it out here is irrelevant.
> > 
> > What leads you to this conclusion? Do you have practical experience 
> > that leads you to this view? I have practical experience of this 
> > tunneled service in real mobile networks that proves the 
> opposite of 
> > what you are saying. I can see that you are expressing a strong 
> > opinion but I have not read and cannot see a reason for it 
> from what I 
> > know about IPv6 in mobile networks.
> 
> I don't have a lot of experience in 3GPP networks (obviously), but 
> discussing these issues with some folks who have (e.g. from 
> Nokia), there 
> seem to be a huge distinction on what you're saying and what 
> others are 
> saying.

Well, let's add a comment from an operator here...

Here are some facts:
- Today's 2.5/3G networks are running on IPv4.
- Today's economic situation is quite difficult.
- Nobody operating a network wants to touch a running system if not
absolutely necessary.

It is therefore very much needed to think about a phased introduction of
IPv6. It is just _not_ realistic to think of a direct move from IPv4 to
native IPv6 - let's make this clear here!

Operators _need_ mechanisms to introduce IPv6 in phases. A first phase
should be fully non-intrusive, cheap but still secure. Tunneling from
the UE (e.g. using ISATAP) seems to perfectly be suited to meet these
requirements. 

I expect the v6ops WG to write guidelines that help the operators in the
introduction of IPv6 in their networks. Such guidelines just have to
consider a phased introduction. Everything else is just not realistic
and not of use for operators. I am looking forward to such documents
from this group.


Regards
Andreas

> 
> > There is always a starting point for the
> > introduction of IPv6 and we must consider this case.
> 
> Introduction of IPv6 works fine in the operator's own 
> network.  It works 
> fine if the user is satisfied with only v4 when he goes 
> abroad and the 
> roaming partner doesn't support v6, etc.
> 
> -- 
> Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
> Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
> Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings
> 
> 
>