Subject: RE: 3gpp-analysis-05: miscellaneous non-critical issues

From: "Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 16:18:40 +0200

> >  > ==> I think this is in conflict with the text already 
 > >  > written earlier in
 > >  > this section.  I suggest:
 > >  > 
 > >  >     As a general guideline, native IPv6 communication
 > >  >     is preferred to IPv4 communication going through IPv4 NATs
 > >  >     to the same dual stack peer node.
 > >  > 
 > >  >  JW: I don't have any complaints.
 > > 
 > > This changes the meaning of the text so I don't agree.
 > > It is meant to say that using IPv6 is preferred (to IPv4
 > > through NATs), be it native connectivity or tunneled.
 > 
 > Yep, that's intentional.  However, the only change of 
 > substance here is 
 > that the "tunneled IPv6 from the UE" has been pretty much 
 > killed from the 
 > document already.
 > 
 > So, I think my text is better.  One could of course just say 
 > "As a general 
 > guideline, IPv6 communication ....", i.e., kill "native" by 
 > making it a 
 > bit more general while not pointing out the not-so-relevant details.
 > 
 >  JW: 
 >       => can we agree on Pekka's suggestion and just remove
 >       "native" from Pekka's text?

Pekka's understanding was that we killed the "tunneled IPv6 part".
I don't think that is what has been done in the document, since now it just
specifies better when tunneling may be useful. Since we do talk about
a case where tunnelling can be useful we should keep the sentence as is
so that it mentions native and tunneled. It was written on purpose not
to make it sound like it was only "native" that we were talking about
by explicitly writing native or tunneled.
/Karim

---

From: Pekka Savola <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 21:10:41 +0300 (EEST)

> by explicitly writing native or tunneled.

I'm not sure how you read that we're recommending tunneling (excerpt below
*).  That certainly isn't the intent.  Perhaps it needs to be reworded to
be more explicit.

My point of removing "native or tunneled" is that because there should not 
be any (or close to any) tunneled connectivity (from the UE) in the first 
place, pointing it out here is irrelevant.

*)
    However, the UE may attach to a 3GPP network, in which the Serving
    GPRS Support Node (SGSN), the GGSN and the Home Location Register
    (HLR) support IPv4 PDP contexts, but may not support IPv6 PDP
    contexts. If the 3GPP network does not support IPv6 PDP contexts,
    and an application on the UE needs to communicate with an IPv6(-
    only) node, the UE may activate an IPv4 PDP context and encapsulate
    IPv6 packets in IPv4 packets using a tunneling mechanism. This
    might happen in very early phases of IPv6 deployment. To generally
    solve this problem (IPv6 not available in the 3GPP network), this
    document strongly recommends the 3GPP operators to deploy basic
    IPv6 support in their GPRS networks, which can in most cases be
    handled by making software upgrades in the network elements.

-- 
Pekka Savola                 "You each name yourselves king, yet the
Netcore Oy                    kingdom bleeds."
Systems. Networks. Security. -- George R.R. Martin: A Clash of Kings