Subject: Re: draft-wasserman-3gpp-advice-00.txt

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2001 14:56:39 +0100

I have two general concerns about the use of IPv6 in 3GPP
(i.e. things not yet in the document).

First, as it has already been discussed, there can be two kinds of UE
(the customer equipment):
 - 3GPP view: some kind of smart handset or PDA which has the 3GPP
   stack with radio, ... This kind of devices has *not* enough
   human interfaces to be able to do something interesting IMHO but
   this is another debate (:-).
 - our view: a laptop connected to a handset or a dedicated board.
   This laptop has a regular IPv6 stack so the attachement device
   has to present the 3GPP connection as a standard network (i.e.
   Ethernet (what is done by IEEE 802.11 for instance) or PPP with
   IPv6CP).
I believe everybody agree about what not to do in the second case...

The second concern is a bit different, GGSNs will be the point of
connection to an IP world (the Internet, an Intranet) only if the
regulation bodies are not involved. We already know the vertical
integration in a walled garden dream of telecom operators but
fortunately regulation bodies (like ART in France) are here in
order to require a real open market for IP services. This is not
new and this already happened for ADSL, so I believe we'll get
similar solutions.
If the point of connection to IP is a NAS (Network Access Server)
of an ISP, the PDP type of choice should be PPP, just because
PPP/Radius provides a good network access control. Note that
this solves:
 - the UE issue because PPP is a very well known protocol
 - the network access control issue because PPP has good
   authentication-authorization-accounting features (PS:
   IP network access control, the radio network access control
   should be the job of the SIM based stuff. They have to be
   different because the operator and the ISP are not the same entity)
 - the GGSN routing issue because if addresses are allocated by ISPs,
   the GGSN has to manage a zillion of host (or /64) routes.
 - the GGSN to ISP attachement (Gi) because there is no reason to
   not reuse the current ADSL solution (ATM (sic!) to BASs).
etc...

Two small (other) remarks:
 - in order to justify the allocation of /64 in any cases,
   we should require the support by NASs of UE temporary addresses
   (so the recommendation 3 will become a strong one).
 - the dialup document (draft-itojun-ipv6-dialup-requirement-02.txt)
   *applies* so:
    * /128 MUST NOT be considered (/64 is the minimum)
    * allocation model discussion is pertinent so the UE SHOULD be
      by default considered as to be a router

Regards

[email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page:                      http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive:                      ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [email-masked]
--------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: Margaret Wasserman <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 11 Dec 2001 14:56:49 -0500

Hi Francis,

I'm not sure that I understand that second issue that you raised
in your response to the IPv6-3GPP document:

At 08:56 AM 12/4/01 , Francis Dupont wrote:
>of an ISP, 

Are you saying that the regulating bodies in France will require
3GPP providers to go through existing ISPs to get their Internet
service?  If so, how does this change anything?

In our perfect world, 3GPP nodes will be running Internet applications
over IPv6.  Even if IPv4 connectivity is ultimately provided by an
existing ISP, the IPv6 traffic will need to be routed through the
GGSN and a transition mechanism (NAT-PT or 6-over-4) will be required 
to send traffic over the IPv4 Internet.  The choice of transition 
mechanism should probably depend on whether the ultimate destination
is an IPv4 node, or an IPv6 node (such as another 3GPP-attached device).

>the PDP type of choice should be PPP, just because

Are you suggesting that the 3GPP should replace the current PDP
context concept with PPP?  This would be a substantial architectural
change to 3GPP, and is outside of the scope of our document.

Margaret

---

From: Francis Dupont <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 12 Dec 2001 00:34:22 +0100

In your previous mail you wrote:

   
   service?

=> the French regulating body and several others require that
customers can get their Internet service from existing ISPs,
not only from the ISP(s) of the GPRS provider(s).

   If so, how does this change anything?
   
=> the point of connection to the Internet is not the GGSN, but is
a Network Access Server of an ISP. As ISPs need network access control
(AAA with a stress on the last A :-), the stupid already used solution
is the ADSL one (ADSL has the same requirement for openness), i.e. PPP.

   over IPv6.

=> it doesn't matter: ISPs will choice how they provide Internet services
and if they really want to provide a good service (and keep their customers)
they should provide IPv6 with a transition mechanism for legacy IPv4.

   Even if IPv4 connectivity is ultimately provided by an
   
=> what you decribe is "vertical integration", i.e. the dream of telephants.
But they is a pressure to the other (correct) way from both customers
(they won't understand to get less than ADSL for far more money) and
regulation bodies. I can try to find the "WAP lock" story in English
(an attempt to do vertical integration (aka rempant monopoly) with
WAP, the result was large fines and a very small market).

   Are you suggesting that the 3GPP should replace the current PDP
   context concept with PPP?

=> no, PPP is already in the concept (there are three PDP context types:
IPv4, IPv6 and PPP).

   This would be a substantial architectural
   change to 3GPP, and is outside of the scope of our document.
   
=> I just suggest what the assumptions about what shall happen
need more analysis, i.e. to make confusion between telephant dreams
and the future (:-).

Regards