Subject: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 05:45:01 -0700 (PDT)

A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile. Please take a look at it and comment.

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2013 18:18:49 +0100 (CET)

> A new draft has been posted, at http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile. Please take a look at it and comment.

I have read this.

REQ#29. I have had some confusion by vendors when I request this in a 
similar wording. As soon as they see "release 10", they see a huge chunk 
of requirements and they will say "device doesn't support release 10". 
When I then tell them that DHCPv6-PD is a purely control plane feature, I 
have received more favorable responses. I recommend to re-write of this 
paragraph to tone down the Release 10 mention.

REQ#31:

What about MSS clamping?

Apart from that, I like this document and it's a useful collection of 
requirements.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:13:15 +0100

Dear Mikael,

Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med 

>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
>Envoyé : lundi 11 mars 2013 18:19
>À : [email-masked]
>Cc : [email-masked]; 
>[email-masked]
>Objet : Re: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>
>> A new draft has been posted, at 
>http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profi
>le. Please take a look at it and comment.
>
>I have read this.
>

Med: Is this wording better? (note prefix delegation is discussed in REQ#27 without any reference to release 10)

OLD:
   REQ#29:  Prefix delegation which allows to allocate a shorter prefix
          to a cellular host is only available since 3GPP Release 10.
          For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the
          cellular device SHOULD support [I-D.ietf-v6ops-64share] to
          enable sharing a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards
          the GGSN (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces.

NEW:
   REQ#29:  For deployments requiring to share the same /64 prefix, the
          cellular device SHOULD support [I-D.ietf-v6ops-64share] to
          enable sharing a /64 prefix between the 3GPP interface towards
          the GGSN (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces.

>What about MSS clamping?

Med: As you know this is a controversial feature. I checked this thread (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg14406.html) to see if that discussion can help in drafting some text to propose to you...but my reading of that discussion is there is no clear conclusion to make. 

>Apart from that, I like this document and it's a useful collection of 

Med: Thanks.

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 15:54:27 +0100 (CET)

>          the GGSN (WAN interface) and the LAN interfaces.

Sounds good to me.

>>
>> REQ#31:
>>
>> What about MSS clamping?
>
> Med: As you know this is a controversial feature. I checked this thread 
> (http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops/current/msg14406.html) to 
> see if that discussion can help in drafting some text to propose to 
> you...but my reading of that discussion is there is no clear conclusion 
> to make.

Personally I like the IPv6 MTU setting you're already suggesting, this is 
how I do things at home currently (tunnel with lower MTU so I set my home 
to "ip mtu 1400" and everything is fine). MSS clamping is as you say 
controversial. Perhaps it could be a MAY feature? Otoh that doesn't give 
strong guidance so it might be redundant and should be avoided.

I just wanted to bring the topic up.

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2013 17:48:55 +0100

Re-,

Please see inline.
Cheers,
Med 

>Envoyé : mardi 12 mars 2013 15:54
>À : BOUCADAIR Mohamed OLNC/OLN
>Cc : [email-masked]; 
>Objet : RE: [v6ops] new draft: draft-ietf-v6ops-mobile-device-profile
>
>> Med: Is this wording better? (note prefix delegation is 
>discussed in REQ#27 without any reference to release 10)
>>
>> OLD:

Med: Ok, the change is implemented in my local copy.

>I just wanted to bring the topic up.

Med: Thanks for raising the point. I prefer to not mention MSS rewrite in the next revision of the text.