Re: Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only

[Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:

> * Mikael Abrahamsson
>
> > On Thu, 11 Oct 2012, Tore Anderson wrote:
> >
> > > That some features are available only on the most advanced access
> > > technology is perfectly reasonable and to be expected, IMHO. If not,
> > > what's the point of upgrading at all?
> >
> > Uh, whut? I expect my ssh sessions to survive a 4G->3G handover, and if
> > they happen to go over IPv6, I want them to survive.
>
> In my experience, long-lived sessions are unreliable when you're on the
> move anyway. Go into an elevator? Sessions drop. Subway heads into a
> tunnel? Sessions drop.

I guess you and me have radically different experience of mobile phone 
networks and how well they work.

> I think this is a really poor excuse for not supporting IPv6 and IPv4v6 
> in any case. Unless I'm gravely misinformed on how 3GPP mobile networks 
> work, there is absolutely no reason why you cannot on LTE simultaneously 
> support IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6. That the LTE network additionally 
> supports IPv6/IPv4v6 does not *in any way* prevent you from sticking to 
> IPv4 in all cases and enjoying the exact same session mobility between 
> 2G/3G/4G as you can if the LTE network only supports IPv4.

IPv4v6 on LTE is a no-brainer, I did first tests with that 1.5-2 years 
ago. IPv6 only on 2G/3G/4G also works well. Not that many devices with GA 
firmware supports this unfortunately.

> The session mobility problem will not go away completely by upgrading 
> the 2G/3G part of the network, too. As I understand it, there's no 
> shortage of devices on the market that only supports IPv6 on LTE, but 
> not on 3G. Apple's iPhones and iPads, for example. So while it won't be 
> the network's fault, it doesn't really matter - from the end users's 
> point of view, the exact same thing will happen.

Well, with the current end user device situation, focus is on usb dongles. 
They seem to support all combinations just fine.

> Besides, the LTE network is being touted as a potential replacement for 
> wired broadband. In that use case, the end user isn't likely to be 
> mobile at all - presumably he'll have some CPE sitting in his window 
> sill within LTE coverage 100% of the time. So no session mobility 
> issues, and all the potential to be provisioned with IPv6 access. But 
> no.

Sure. But now you will probably have a 4G router with NAT44, with no IPv6 
support at all. I'd gladly take hints of devices with proper IPv4v6 
support in this area.

> > The important reason to upgrade is to get higher speeds, not to get
> > access to new L3 tech.
>
> Missed opportunity if you ask me. We could have had both.

Yes we could, and we will. Just because someone isn't doing it *now* 
doesn't mean it won't be done in the not so distant future.

--
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike () swm pp se