Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only
swmike at swm.pp.se
Thu Oct 11 09:49:11 UTC 2012
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
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 at swm.pp.se
More information about the NANOG