-----Original Message-----
From: Nick Heatley
Sent: 04 December 2009 10:12
My assumptions or opinions, if I am short-sighted please let me know:
- the operator controls the bearer network and UE to some extent, so for
the operator the transition starts here IMHO, regardless of what happens
regarding the Content.
- dual stack UE is compulsory if you wish to support roaming, as visited
networks may require a fall back to IPv4. Otherwise roaming partners
need to allow IPv6 PDP in coordination (I don't see this "flag day" in
any standards?).
- bearer network can have the capacity for dual stack, but what you
offer each UE is selected by the network, then network can choose to
offer a dual stack UE an IPv6-only bearer. If you want to support
roaming visitors to your network then continued support of IPv4-only UEs
is mandatory. So a true IPv6-only bearer network seems false to me.
- from my view in Western Europe, shortage of public addressing for App
Servers is not an issue at all. We are concerned with exhaustion of UE
addressing. Is that true in other markets? (Therefore dual stack of App
Servers where app allow, seems to be a prerequisite).
- As above UEs need to be dual stack for roaming. I would not turn off
that functionality. But any other change to the UE better be worth it -
I agree UE functionality should otherwise be stripped down for cost.
- I don't understand your transition, do you mean the network literally
can only support IPv6-only?
- My overall customer-centric opinion: I want to move to IPv6 in the
long-term. But I don't want the exhaustion of IPv4 addressing,
especially the artificial and arbitrary deadline provided by the 17
million private addressing to set my IPv6 introduction date. I want to
do it when the customer experience offered by IPv4 is matched by IPv6.
I largely agree with points made.
However, rather than the question "when should one move from IPv4 to
IPv6", the one that seems important for the short term is "when should
one move from IPv4-only to IPv4 PLUS IPv6".
To this question, the answer is IMHO clearly "NOW", for all parties:
- OS vendors (it's largely done in PCs).
- Service providers (some have done it, or plan to do it, in particular
with 6rd to offer native IPv6 across unchanged IPv4 infrastructures)
- CPE manufacturers (the less advanced AFAIK).
Customer experience with IPv4 PLUS IPv6 is already satisfactory, as
shown by the regularly increasing IPv6 traffic of Free customers
(www.ripe.net/ripe/meetings/ripe-58/content/presentations/ipv6-free).
These customers, without having to be concerned, and without loss of
quality, have their accesses to Google services made in IPv6 (i.e. with
end-to-end network transparency and therefore no consumption of ports in
any NAT).
Thoughts?
RD
_______________________________________________
Softwires mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
