Subject: Comments: draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:23:55 -0500

The spec once it speaks about tunneling is all over the place saying it
can support private addresses, NATs etc.

http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-go
als-00.txt

I think some of this is just impossible for mobility.  A real case in
S.E. Asia right now looking at 3G IPv6 deployment has the following
problem.  Mobile (seamless) nodes will use native IPv6 and IPv4 to get
to legacy apps that have not been ported to IPv6.  In this case the
problem is that public IPv4 addresses are needed.  But we know all that
and we must address that case.  The other case is that to get to the IMS
networks first you havce to tunnel the packet through IPv4 network to
IMS IPv6 network.  This is not going to work with NAT when the user is
roaming.  So I don't see why the spec does not say this.

Hence, my first input to this spec (and I do believe it should be WG
item) is that we will need to discuss deployment profiles for mobility
and more of enterprise nature than 3GPP nature.  

Thanks
/jim

---

From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 00:30:36 +0100

Jim,

I'm not sure to catch your point here, but the idea is to cover only the
situation when this tunneling is done within the 3GPP provider itself.

In that case, even if there are private addresses (and even NAT) proto-41 is
forwarded, so is possible to tunnel 6in4 w/o any trouble.

Regards,
Jordi

> De: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
> Responder a: [email-masked]
> Fecha: Thu, 4 Nov 2004 14:23:55 -0500
> Para: <[email-masked]>
> Asunto: Comments: draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt
> 

**********************************
Madrid 2003 Global IPv6 Summit
Presentations and videos on line at:
http://www.ipv6-es.com

This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2004 22:11:01 -0800

> roaming.  So I don't see why the spec does not say this.

According to draft-nielsen-v6ops-3GPP-zeroconf-goals-00.txt (section  
4.1. Applicability Assumptions)
the PDP context has to be terminated at the "home" network GGSN, even  
if the user
is actually roaming in a foreign network. Thus, even if private IPv4  
addresses are used,
there would be no NAT between the UE an the tunnel server.

I think the confusion is coming from the introduction text:
 >   Configuration tunneling will in the 3GPP environment be deployed for
 >   the following purposes:
 >      - To provide temporary provisioning of basic IPv6 services, which
 >        users may deploy for the simplest IPv6 services only.
 >      - To allow an Operator, possibly a native IPv6 enabled Operator,
 >        to provide basic IPv6 services to users roaming into foreign
 >        networks which supports IPv4 bearer connectivity only.

In the second case, the fact that the foreign network is offering IPv4  
only or
IPv6 only or a mix of the two is irrelevant as the PDP context will be  
terminated in the home network.
The introduction text should clarify this point.

I have other comments that I will sent in a different thread.

	- Alain.