On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 6:30 PM, Heatley, Nick <nick.heatley@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
If this cross-operator document states what is required on terminals to work in all major/predictable IPv6 scenarios, then it is giving such people a view of what a “healthy and robust” terminal implementation would consist of. If they are able to deliver on these requirements then they can supply a terminal ready for all business areas /all operator network scenarios.
It depends on your point of view. The way I see it, it's giving such people a view of what a kitchen sink consists of.
(It certainly stops the feedback I’ve had from certain corners “that no other operators are asking for IPv6”, and “what you are asking for is a single operator roadmap which we won’t do”. That has been the reality here). So I don’t see how a consolidated demand-side view from operators who are really trying to introduce IPv6 in mobile can harm adoption in any way.
Show me an operator whose rollout is genuinely blocked on terminal features and I will believe you. But word from everyone I've talked to is that terminal features are not the blocker. Operators such as Verizon Wireless and T-Mobile in the US have deployed tens of millions of IPv6-capable devices, and none of those devices (and, I'd argue, no commercial devices, anywhere) implement all the features in this profile. The vast majority only support a handful.
The main problem I have with this document is it provides one more excuse to naysayers who believe that IPv6 is hard. The truth is that various operators have built perfectly functioning IPv6 mobile networks which implement only a handful of these features. But if the naysayers see this document, they'll say "See? Told you - IPv6 is so complicated that it will cost us a boatload of money, and it will bring no additional revenue. No point in implementing it."