> Why operators have no scaling issue allocating a stable IPv4 address to UE but have such an issue when allocating a stable IPv6 prefix to UE?
Sure. IPv4 or IPv6, its fundamentally the same issue. May be they will support it in future, or they don¹t want to extend the same for IPv6. This is for operators to comment and not for me. I cannot speculate the reasons behind their choices, but I do not see some conspiracy theory behind not extending it to IPv6. Its just flexibility of anchoring nodes on any gateways, IMO. Or, may there are much important reasons than this one that I do not understand. Sri On 5/7/18, 12:25 AM, "Alexandre Petrescu" <[email protected]> wrote: > > >Le 04/05/2018 à 01:43, Sri Gundavelli (sgundave) a écrit : >>>> Well, one can have one own's HA (not cellular network's) to manage the >>>> static prefix allocated to the UE, and the cellular network to assign >>>>a >>>> variable prefix in RA. >> >> >> Sure, but now the discussion is no longer about the IPv6 prefix >>allocation >> for the LTE access. You can do this today if you have a MIPv6 client >> stack, and its already supported over IKEv2/IPsec. > >Sure. > >Why operators have no scaling issue allocating a stable IPv4 address to >UE but have such an issue when allocating a stable IPv6 prefix to UE? > >Why operators live ok with gateway/subscriber stickiness for IPv4 (and >thus allocate a stable IPv4 address to UE) but not for IPv6 (dont >allocate a stable IPv6 to UE)? > >Alex > >> >> >> Sri _______________________________________________ dmm mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dmm
