Subject: [5gangip] GTP draft (was: re: Notes from today's meeting)

From: Behcet Sarikaya <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 14 May 2018 16:17:45 -0500

Folks,
It is very easy to get IPv6 connectivity on a Mac.
You just make sure your TCP/IP configuration includes IPv6.
I downloaded Alex 's draft, here it is.
Before this on my Mac I had never used IPv6, shame on me, it was peanuts.

Alex also posted xml file there.

Hope this helps.

Behcet

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 07:23:47 +0200 (CEST)

> Before this on my Mac I had never used IPv6, shame on me, it was peanuts.

IPv6 has been default enabled in all major desktop operating systems since 
around the time of Windows Vista. So for 10 years or more, all Macs, 
Windows machines and Linux machines come with this default on.

You have most likely used IPv6 before, it's just that you didn't notice. 
This is exactly how it was intended and designed. Users shouldn't care 
about IPv4 or IPv6, they want Internet access and it should just work.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: [email-masked]

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 08:13:30 +0200

Le 15/05/2018 à 07:23, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
> IPv6 has been default enabled in all major desktop operating systems 
> since around the time of Windows Vista. So for 10 years or more, all 
> Macs, Windows machines and Linux machines come with this default on.

Yes.

> You have most likely used IPv6 before, it's just that you didn't notice.

Not having noticed is great.  But drawing false conclusions from that 
notice absence is wrong.

For example, being on GTP-over-IPv4 with "IPv6 as a service" and drawing 
the conclusion that one is on IPv6 is wrong.

> about IPv4 or IPv6, they want Internet access and it should just work.

I agree.

But it is not because IPv4 works that IPv6 works too.

That is a very fine distinction.

Because, in situations where IPv6 working depends on IPv4 means that if 
IPv4 breaks then IPv6 breaks too.

Alex

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 06:19:18 +0000

Whilst enabling a v6 stack on your client is easy, many corporate networks do not currently support v6 and therefore accessing external v6-only sites is impossible.

Additionally, many DSL suppliers have not enabled v6 or require configuration changes on the CPE to support this and consequently uptake of v6 on home Broadband is minuscule.

Whilst I could get this document over Eduroam, I could not on my corporate network (outside of my control), my home broadband or any of the three MNO mobile broadband connections I tried.

David

Sent from my iPhone
________________________________
From: 5gangip <[email-masked]> on behalf of Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2018 6:23:47 AM
To: [email-masked]
Cc: 5GANGIP
Subject: Re: [5gangip] GTP draft (was: re: Notes from today's meeting)

_______________________________________________
5gangip mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/5gangip

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 08:27:40 +0200 (CEST)

On Tue, 15 May 2018, [email-masked] wrote:

> Whilst enabling a v6 stack on your client is easy, many corporate

It's already on, nothing to enable. This is an important distinction.

> networks do not currently support v6 and therefore accessing external 
> v6-only sites is impossible.

That's correct. The network needs to enable IPv6 support, but the clients 
already have IPv6 enabled as of 10 years ago.

> Additionally, many DSL suppliers have not enabled v6 or require 
> configuration changes on the CPE to support this and consequently uptake 
> of v6 on home Broadband is minuscule.

Well, I wouldn't call it miniscule. Many tens of millions of residential 
broadband connections have IPv6 enabled nowadays.

> Whilst I could get this document over Eduroam, I could not on my 
> corporate network (outside of my control), my home broadband or any of 
> the three MNO mobile broadband connections I tried.

Right, I have IPv6 native on my residential broadband. I do not have it on 
my phone, because only two out of four mobile providers in Sweden has 
enabled it, and my company buys from the one who hasn't. So my wife has 
IPv6 on her mobile phone, but I do not.

---

From: Mikael Abrahamsson <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 08:35:30 +0200 (CEST)

> the conclusion that one is on IPv6 is wrong.

You are the ONLY ONE making this distincion. It's a weird argument and you 
should stop going on about this. Nobody but you makes this distinction. 
Why aren't you listening to all the pushback (and lack of support) for 
your view on things?

> IPv4 breaks then IPv6 breaks too.

Again, this is a silly argument. Most MPLS networks rely on IPv4 for their 
MPLS control plane, and then run IPv4 and IPv6 over MPLS. Are you going to 
say this is not a properly IPv6 enabled network as well? 6PE isn't IPv6 
enabled?

It doesn't matter if GTP runs over IPv4 or IPv6. That's an operational 
decision. It's what's inside the GTP packet, the payload, that is 
important. Nobody cares if the frames are tunneled over IPv4, IPv6, MPLS, 
ATM, Ethernet or most of it at once like IPv4oETHoATMoDSL. Encapsulation 
and the stack of packets is an operational decision. The service is the 
important thing.

A IPv4v6 GTP tunnel carried over IPv4 or IPv6 is the same, or are you 
going to make the argument that an IPv4 GTP packet over IPv6 is not an 
IPv4 service? Because it relies on IPv6 "failing"?

---

From: <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 06:51:12 +0000

We are SERIOUSLY off-topic, but in the UK, less than 30% of Internet connections of any type are IPv6 enabled.  That number has flat-lined since early 2016. 

I only have four of the M(v)NO connections to test, but not a single one of them offers native v6 on mobile-broadband.

My son's school certainly isn't v6 enabled; yet IP v4 and v6 are taught as part of the GCSE (aged-16) syllabus Computer Science!

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: 15 May 2018 07:28
To: Lake D Mr (PG/R - Elec Electronic Eng) <[email-masked]>
Cc: [email-masked]; [email-masked]
Subject: Re: [5gangip] GTP draft (was: re: Notes from today's meeting)

> v6-only sites is impossible.

That's correct. The network needs to enable IPv6 support, but the clients already have IPv6 enabled as of 10 years ago.

> configuration changes on the CPE to support this and consequently 
> uptake of v6 on home Broadband is minuscule.

Well, I wouldn't call it miniscule. Many tens of millions of residential broadband connections have IPv6 enabled nowadays.

> the three MNO mobile broadband connections I tried.

Right, I have IPv6 native on my residential broadband. I do not have it on my phone, because only two out of four mobile providers in Sweden has enabled it, and my company buys from the one who hasn't. So my wife has
IPv6 on her mobile phone, but I do not.

---

From: Alexandre Petrescu <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 15 May 2018 14:01:11 +0200

Le 15/05/2018 à 08:35, Mikael Abrahamsson a écrit :
[...]
>> Because, in situations where IPv6 working depends on IPv4 means that 
>> if IPv4 breaks then IPv6 breaks too.
> 
> Again, this is a silly argument. Most MPLS networks rely on IPv4 for 
> their MPLS control plane, and then run IPv4 and IPv6 over MPLS. Are you 
> going to say this is not a properly IPv6 enabled network as well?

YEs.  With that MPLS/IPv4 when IPv4 breaks will break IPv6 as well.

> 6PE 
> isn't IPv6 enabled?

I do not know.

> important. Nobody cares if the frames are tunneled over IPv4, IPv6, 
> MPLS, ATM, Ethernet or most of it at once like IPv4oETHoATMoDSL.
 >
> Encapsulation and the stack of packets is an operational decision. The 
> service is the important thing.
> 

I tend to agree with you that IPv6 first thing is to give it to end 
users, even if it's carried by IPv4.  But that was the first thing with 
6bone, and 6to4 too.  Since then it is good to evolve to native IPv6: 
MPLS/IPv6, GTPoUDPoUDPoIPv6, and so on.

Alex