Subject: RE: [16ng] Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-16ng-ipv6-over-ipv6cs-00.txt

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:04:56 +0200

Hi Alex, 

[snip-snap]

> Let me ask this then: a 3GPP commercial operator giving /64 
> prefixes to
> mobiles - does it ensure their mobiles are reachable from the 
> IPv6 Internet?

No.. why should it? This falls into operators' or possible
customers' deployment decisions.

Cheers,
	Jouni

_______________________________________________
16ng mailing list
[email-masked]
http://eeca16.sogang.ac.kr/mailman/listinfo/16ng

---

From: Alexandru Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 21:49:20 +0200

Hi Jouni.. snip-snap heh :-)

[email-masked] wrote:
>> prefixes to mobiles - does it ensure their mobiles are reachable 
>> from the IPv6 Internet?
> 
> No.. why should it? This falls into operators' or possible customers'
>  deployment decisions.

Right, and if all customers needed to connect to the IPv6 Internet (and
all ready to pay for that) the operator couldn't probably technically
keep up with the demand, because it had not enough IPv6 addresses (it
gave a /48 to each mobile).

I think that an operator planning its network should know in advance
that if it distributes a /48 to each mobile user then it will face the
risk of not having enough of those /48s.

A closed IPv6 network, within one operator services and users, is a
different thing indeed.  But then, these operators also wonder why not
continue use non-routable NAT IPv4 addresses?  IPv4 does the trick as
IPv6 in most respects and functionalities.

Alex