|
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. [DB] Maybe you are right, maybe not.
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. [DB] Do we consider that all features are mandatory in the draft ? Not at all and it demonstrates that RFC 2119 terminology is useful. Whatever you
think, it is still a problem to get some IPv6-ready devices and that explains why some on-going IPv6 deployment still rely on some limited number of devices in some areas. The document will not solve everything but it could help some operators to discuss with
vendors about their requirements, as it has been mentioned by several ones on this mailing list. 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." [DB] Operators do not need any excuse for some strategy elaboration. And the document does not add any new hurdles for IPv6 deployment since it list
some requirements based on existing specifications. We should speak for ourselves and should not imagine how other people will consider such document. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Ce message et ses pieces jointes peuvent contenir des informations confidentielles ou privilegiees et ne doivent donc pas etre diffuses, exploites ou copies sans autorisation. Si vous avez recu ce message par erreur, veuillez le signaler a l'expediteur et le detruire ainsi que les pieces jointes. Les messages electroniques etant susceptibles d'alteration, Orange decline toute responsabilite si ce message a ete altere, deforme ou falsifie. Merci. This message and its attachments may contain confidential or privileged information that may be protected by law; they should not be distributed, used or copied without authorisation. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete this message and its attachments. As emails may be altered, Orange is not liable for messages that have been modified, changed or falsified. Thank you. |