Re: IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

[Joel Jaeggli <joelja () bogus com>]

On 2/11/11 6:31 PM, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
> On Fri, 11 Feb 2011, Tom Limoncelli wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 11, 2011 at 2:56 PM, Owen DeLong <owen () delong com> wrote:
>
> > > I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is
> > > already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the
> > > native protocol and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to
> > > operate.
> >
> > I'm writing an article where I want to say that but I can't find an
> > article I can reference to back it up.
>
> We're an LTE operator and this is the first time I've heard about this.
> LTE supports IPv4 and IPv6 and as far as I can discern, that is a
> requirement, and there is no "hackery" to get IPv4 running.

3gpp release 8 and later does not throw out the baby with the bathwater.
v6 only contexts are certainly supported however and we know for a fact
that there are certain entities that will use that in short order.

> We have yet to see any LTE terminals (USB dongels so far) that support
> IPv6. There are a lot of other kinks to work out first, going IPv6 only
> here is definitely not the place. Remember, a lot of people buying this
> service is taking the USB dongle and attaching it to their corporate XP
> laptop.

The current verizon lte sticks (sourced lg and pantech) do in fact
provide v6 connectivity as do some of the embedded mini pci-e cards.

I note with some entertainment for the future of mobile walled gardens
the last bullet point on this page everytime I see it:

https://www.lte.vzw.com/About4GLTE/VerizonWireless4GLTENetwork/tabid/6003/Default.aspx