Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Roaming Scenarios
draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-07

[Ballot comment]
Given the content of the document as indicated by the Abstract, it
would be really helpful if the document title also included "failure."
Something like "Analysis of Failure Cases in IPv6 Roaming Scenarios"

[Ballot comment]
It seems a bit odd to publish this in the IETF instead of 3GPP or the like, but presuming we're not stepping on any toes and the WG thought this was good information to put out there, I don't see any reason to object.

IESG/Authors/WG Chairs:

IANA has reviewed draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis-05, which is currently in Last Call, and has the following comments:

We understand that this document doesn't require any IANA actions.

While it is helpful for the IANA Considerations section of the document to remain in place upon publication, if the authors prefer to remove it, IANA doesn't object.

If this assessment is not accurate, please respond as soon as possible.

The following Last Call announcement was sent out:

From: The IESG
To: IETF-Announce
CC:
Reply-To: ietf@ietf.org
Sender:
Subject: Last Call:  (IPv6 Roaming Behavior Analysis) to Informational RFC


The IESG has received a request from the IPv6 Operations WG (v6ops) to
consider the following document:
- 'IPv6 Roaming Behavior Analysis'
  as Informational RFC

The IESG plans to make a decision in the next few weeks, and solicits
final comments on this action. Please send substantive comments to the
ietf@ietf.org mailing lists by 2014-09-29. Exceptionally, comments may be
sent to iesg@ietf.org instead. In either case, please retain the
beginning of the Subject line to allow automated sorting.

Abstract


  This document identifies a set of failure cases that may be
  encountered by IPv6-enabled mobile customers in roaming scenarios.
  The analysis reveals that the failure causes include improper
  configurations, incomplete functionality support in equipment, and
  inconsistent IPv6 deployment strategies between the home and the
  visited networks.




The file can be obtained via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis/

IESG discussion can be tracked via
http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-v6ops-ipv6-roaming-analysis/ballot/


No IPR declarations have been submitted directly on this I-D.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why is
this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document requests Informational status. It is a report, in large
part, on the experience of deploying IPv6-only services in a 3GPP
mobile network using NAT64 for access to IPv4 services.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document identifies a set of failure cases that may be
  encountered by IPv6-enabled mobile customers in roaming scenarios.
  The analysis reveals that the failure causes include improper
  configurations, incomplete functionality support in equipment, and
  inconsistent IPv6 deployment strategies between the home and the
  visited networks.

Working Group Summary

China Mobile has been pretty openly discussing what they call "IPv6
Bearer Network Trials" starting at IETF 81. As one might imagine, they
had various problems with routing (OSPF issues due to variable MTU,
for example) and other operational aspects. They started discussing
their issues in roaming at IETF 87, and other operators experimenting
with the technology chimed in. This was accepted as a working group
draft and discussed at IETF 89, and is now being filed. There has been
active discussion on technical points, but little real dispute.

Document Quality

This is operational experience, and the author list reflects the set
of companies reporting experience with it - Deutsche Telekom AG,
Rogers, China Mobile, and Orange. Given the range of comments made,
the document appears to cover the bases.

Note that while the document specifically addresses 3GPP networks, it
also comments on 2G and 4G, and by extension LTE.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Fred Baker Area Director: Joel Jaeggli

Document Shepherd Review: I have read the document several times, one
looking for possible ESL issues and at least one on technical
issues. I have of course also run it through online tools including
idnits, and the Microsoft Word Grammar Checker, looking for "unusual"
phraseology. I am not personally an expert on 3GPP technology, but
have followed working group commentary from those who are.

I do not have concerns on the reviews that have been done. If the Ops
Directorate wants to chime in, that might be welcome.

Matters of broader perspective, in this case, largely extend to 3GPP
itself. The authors include 3GPP experts, and many on the list have
that expertise.

I am comfortable recommending the document.

There are no IPR filings against this document or its predecessor, and
the authors know of no IPR issues.

I would describe the consensus behind this document as pretty
strong. Besides the authors, the folks in the working group that work
in this area have also been supportive. That does not reflect the
entire working group; many who do not operate 3GPP Mobile Networks
have no commented. That is to be expected.

There has been no appeal threatened.

The references are divided among "informative", which are pointers for
further reading, and "normative", which are essential to understanding
the document. The references, normative and informative, are all
finished documents.

This document changes the status of no RFCs.

The IANA section correctly asserts that the document makes no requests
of IANA.

(1) What type of RFC is being requested (BCP, Proposed Standard,
Internet Standard, Informational, Experimental, or Historic)?  Why
is this the proper type of RFC?  Is this type of RFC indicated in the
title page header?

This document requests Informational status. It is a report, in large part, on the experience of deploying IPv6-only services in a 3GPP mobile network using NAT64 for access to IPv4 services.

(2) The IESG approval announcement includes a Document Announcement
Write-Up. Please provide such a Document Announcement Write-Up. Recent
examples can be found in the "Action" announcements for approved
documents. The approval announcement contains the following sections:

Technical Summary

  This document identifies a set of failure cases that may be
  encountered by IPv6-enabled mobile customers in roaming scenarios.
  The analysis reveals that the failure causes include improper
  configurations, incomplete functionality support in equipment, and
  inconsistent IPv6 deployment strategies between the home and the
  visited networks.

Working Group Summary

China Mobile has been pretty openly discussing what they call "IPv6 Bearer Network Trials" starting at IETF 81. As one might imagine, they had various problems with routing (OSPF issues due to variable MTU, for example) and other operational aspects. They started discussing their issues in roaming at IETF 87, and other operators experimenting with the technology chimed in. This was accepted as a working group draft and discussed at IETF 89, and is now being filed. There has been active discussion on technical points, but little real dispute.

Document Quality

This is operational experience, and the author list reflects the set of companies reporting experience with it - Deutsche Telekom AG, Rogers, China Mobile, and Orange. Given the range of comments made, the document appears to cover the bases.

Note that while the document specifically addresses 3GPP networks, it also comments on 2G and 4G, and by extension LTE.

Personnel

Document Shepherd: Fred Baker
Area Director: Joel Jaeggli

Document Shepherd Review: I have read the document several times, one looking for possible ESL issues and at least one on technical issues. I have of course also run it through online tools including idnits, and the Microsoft Word Grammar Checker, looking for "unusual" phraseology. I am not personally an expert on 3GPP technology, but have followed working group commentary from those who are.

I do not have concerns on the reviews that have been done. If the Ops Directorate wants to chime in, that might be welcome.

Matters of broader perspective, in this case, largely extend to 3GPP itself. The authors include 3GPP experts, and many on the list have that expertise.

I am comfortable recommending the document.

There are no IPR filings against this document or its predecessor, and the authors know of no IPR issues.

I would describe the consensus behind this document as pretty strong. Besides the authors, the folks in the working group that work in this area have also been supportive. That does not reflect the entire working group; many who do not operate 3GPP Mobile Networks have no commented. That is to be expected.

There has been no appeal threatened.

The references are divided among "informative", which are pointers for further reading, and "normative", which are essential to understanding the document. The references, normative and informative, are all finished documents.

This document changes the status of no RFCs.

The IANA section correctly asserts that the document makes no requests of IANA.