Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only squat space + NAT

Mailman List Mirror (Read Only)
21

Why do you believe that address changes in handover? It's an integral part
of 3GPP standard that your existing bearer is used for handover, so your
address shouldn't change. If it changes then it means the handover didn't
work as designed, probably due to some radio related problem. If the address
changed, then it means the bearer was torn down and a new bearer was
initiated. This is definitely not expected behaviour. We have plenty of
customers with bearers that are up for tens of days in a row.

For that to be true wouldnt support for IPv6 need to be in all
generations of networks. With that standard in place there can not be
new protocols without retrofitting. For a user to switch from 6 to 4
would require and address change however that address change would be
reliant on DNS which would be out of the scope of network grade
support.

22

* Mikael Abrahamsson

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. Get in range of a known WiFi network? Sessions
drop. If you want to make an app for mobile, you better be able to
recover. So for me, this is hardly a concern. Still, I'll grant you that
you that you and I might have different priorities here.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I lose my YouTube streams when I get handed over from 3G to 2G, too,
for example. I can live with that. I much prefer it to YouTube not
working 3G as well, even though that might very well be considered a
more "consistent" user experience.

I don't agree with you at all. I don't believe I would lose the stream
when doing that handoff in our network, it might buffer some more
(because EDGE is slower than HSDPA), but you wouldn't lose the stream.

I'm not watching a YouTube stream to see a still frame with a
"buffering..." animation on top, so if I roam into 2G while watching
something, I'll be putting my phone away anyway. Whether or not I
actually lose the TCP connection is besides the point, the application
is useless anyway.

23

The goal is to have dual stack in all networks. Single stack IPv6 has worked for a long time in 2G/3G/4G (I did first trials 2 years ago, it's a non-brainer). It's the support for a dual stack bearer that is problematic.

24

* Mikael Abrahamsson

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.

25

* Mikael Abrahamsson

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.

Maybe. Welcome to Oslo. :slight_smile:

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,

...and that is *precisely* why it's so disappointing to see Telenor not
supporting it from day one.

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.

I don't know of any 4G routers at all, but what I do know is that any 4G
router with NAT44 and no IPv6 support would work just fine in an LTE
network that also supported IPv6/IPv4v6.

What I also do know is that if you do manage to get your hands on a
dual-stack capable router (or any other mobile device really), its IPv6
capabilities will *not* work on an LTE network with no IPv6/IPv4v6
bearer support.

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.

We could have had it available on LTE *now* and in a not so distant
future on 2G/3G. Doing it incrementally like that would not break any
current IPv4-only stuff, so I don't understand how it's problematic.

26

Subscription only, $199/year (special introductory offer, normally $499!).

Try it free for two weeks but only if you cough up info.

How about a summary for those of us who are disinclined to do either?

-r

bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com writes:

27

But then, if I remember correctly, Telenor choose to go all-in with one of the Chinese vendors.. I am really interested to see how that plays out.

/Joakim