Another LTE network turns up as IPv4-only

Tore Anderson tore.anderson at redpill-linpro.com
Thu Oct 11 10:38:14 UTC 2012


* 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. :-)

>> 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.

-- 
Tore Anderson
Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com



More information about the NANOG mailing list