On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 5:18 PM, <mohamed.boucadair@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I really don’t see how you can have a phone that “make a phone that works perfectly well on an IPv6-only” if you don’t support IPv6/IPv4v6 PDP context
You don't need to support IPV4V6 if all you need to do is work on an IPv6-only network. That might seem like a stupid answer, but the point I'm trying to make is that while you and I know that supporting only IPV6 will result in the phone being incompatible with some networks *the document doesn't say that*. The document says you MUST support all this stuff, without saying why, and without giving any information to operators, implementers, or anyone else on why this particular laundry list of features was selected. That's not a good way to specify things. Look at RFC1122, for example: every requirement is carefully articulated, with rationale and everything else.
you don’t have a means to make work broken applications when IPv6-only is enabled
Nobody can control third party-applications, not even the phone manufacturer (which is why REQ#33 doesn't make sense). The manufacturer can provide something like 464xlat, which I agree is necessary for IPv6-only operation.
if the phone does not follow the procedure for requesting the PDP context,
You don't need to do that if you have an APN database that's configured with what the operator supports, or if you don't support IPV4V6. (Straying back into technical discussion for a bit - from a technical point of view, having seen the wide variety of behaviours and result codes that basebands typically exhibit when you ask them to do something that they or the network doesn't support, I think relying on this fallback is a terrible idea.)
how you can be compatible with DNSSEC, etc.
How many phones today support DNSSEC?
NOTE WELL: This document is not a standard, and conformance with
it is not required in order to claim conformance with IETFstandards for IPv6. The support of the full set of features maynot be required in some contexts (e.g. dual-stack). The supportof a subset of the features included in this profile may lead todegraded level of service (e.g., IPv6-only mode).
This is not about IPv6-only mode. That's a useful feature, and as I'm sure you know, it's been implemented by a number of manufacturers.
Consider an implementation that implements IPv6 tethering without including a full RFC6204 IPv6 router with simple security, ULA, DHCPv6 PD, stateful DHCPv6 and all the bells and whistles built in. Or consider a 464xlat implementation without a local DNS64 implementation.
I don't consider these to be degraded service, I consider them to be a lot better than what we have today. But someone taking this document as a guide to what needs to be implemented to deploy IPv6 would consider them to be incomplete or broken implementations. Such a person might look at the 34 requirements and just give up, when in fact such an implementation is perfectly capable of doing IPv6 today.