Hi Fred, The DMM WG is still discussing PS and the related issues. By the time we adopt a solution and complete the work, we will surely be in 2016. So, is it not safer to raise the bar and limit certain interfaces to IPv6-only ? I'm not arguing against adding any support for IPv4, but IMO the bar should be high. We can certainly support all possible types of networks, IPv4-only transport, IPv4-only user plane, and IPv4-only services. But, looking at our current pace and doing some extrapolation, its safe to say we will bake this for a long time and so limiting the work scope IMO helps. But, this is just my opinion/comment and personally don't care if some one wants to do the work and the chairs/AD/WG agree with it. Also, I do not know yet how much of the solution work will really be IP-version dependent. Mostly some network interfaces and there IPv6 possibly is a safe assumption.
Regards Sri On 6/19/14 11:30 AM, "Templin, Fred L" <[email protected]> wrote: >Hi Sri, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: dmm [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sri Gundavelli >>(sgundave) >> Sent: Thursday, June 19, 2014 11:20 AM >> To: Brian Haberman; [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >> Agree. We should ensure the base solution supports IPv6 transport and >>user >> sessions. Optionally, support for IPv4 can be allowed on certain >> interfaces, but clearly should not deal with IPv4, NAT's or allow >> IPv4-only solutions. > >I don't understand that. In my enterprise, I have IPv4-only wireless >access points yet there are IPv6 services within the enterprise. When >I switch over to 4G wireless, I again get IPv4-only access but again >there are IPv6 services within the enterprise. > >If the mobility management mechanism supports IPv6 over IPv4 tunneling >(possibly including NATs in the path), then the use case is satisfied; >otherwise, the use case is not satisfied. > >Thanks - Fred >[email protected] > >> Regards >> Sri >> >> >> >> On 6/18/14 8:43 AM, "Brian Haberman" <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> >Hi Fred, >> > >> >On 6/18/14 11:25 AM, Templin, Fred L wrote: >> >> Hi Jouni, >> >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >> >>> From: Jouni Korhonen [mailto:[email protected]] >> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 2014 3:00 AM >> >>> To: Templin, Fred L; [email protected] >> >>> Subject: Re: [DMM] draft charter text updates in github.. >> >>> >> >>> Fred, >> >>> >> >>> It is true IPv4 is there (and will be for a long time). Although the >> >>> charter does emphasize IPv6 as the base solution it does not >>prohibit >> >>> adding IPv4 support. It is just we can accept an IPv6-only solution >>as >> >>>a >> >>> valid & complete solution from DMM point of view. >> >> >> >> However, a solution that works equally well whether the access >>networks >> >> are IPv6-only, dual-stack, or IPv4-only has clear advantages in terms >> >> of near-term deployment in real networks. Therefore, I think the >>charter >> >> is currently saying _too much_. My new proposal is simply to strike >>the >> >> following two sentences: >> >> >> >> "DMM solutions are primarily targeted at IPv6 deployments and >> >> should not be required to support IPv4, specifically in situations >> >> where private IPv4 addresses and/or NATs are used. IPv6 is >> >> assumed to be present in both the mobile host/router and the >> >> access networks." >> >> >> > >> >The above has been a part of the DMM charter for a long time. Taking >>it >> >out would appear to be opening the door for IPv4-only solutions. My >> >assessment of the winds within the community is that people are not >> >interested in new protocols for IPv4. >> > >> >Just my opinion... >> > >> >Brian >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> dmm mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
