On Tue, Oct 7, 2014 at 10:45 PM, Ross Chandler <ross@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
If Apple iOS supported IPv6-only/464xlat and all mobile devices had better support for problem roaming cases then I might think this might not provide a needed signal but it would still be useful to have a document listing desired features.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.
I agree with you that these two are problems, and that solving them would improve the state (and the amount of) IPv6 in mobile networks. It would be good to have discussions and publish documents on real issues that actually affect deployment. But the way to do so is not to bury those real issues into a laundry list of requirements. (Not to mention that this document classes 464xlat as "should".)
The majority of work implementing the appropriate subset of the features is with the mobile device vendor. There’s a growing list of operators to look at that are doing it under restricted circumstances. Items from the list could help operators broaden the scope of their IPv6 deployments.
Other than the two features you mention above, which ones are likely to have an impact? Perhaps this document should focus more on those.