|
2. I stand by my earlier assessment that this document's requirements are over-broad, and in fact so broad as to harm adoption. There may well be operators or device implementers that seeing with such a high number
of requirements may shy away in terror and think that deploying IPv6 in a mobile network is an impossibly high amount of work. That said, given that this document says clearly that it is not a standard, and that compliance is not required, the harm it does
will be limited. There may well be operators and device implementers that see the many individual “IPv6” RFCs and shy away. Transitioning technologies are still perceived as
issues for the network. 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 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. Regards, Nick From: v6ops [mailto:v6ops-bounces@xxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Lorenzo Colitti NOTICE AND DISCLAIMER EE Limited |