[146180] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 beta support for Android phones
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Tom Hill)
Mon Nov 7 04:55:26 2011
From: Tom Hill <tom@ninjabadger.net>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2011 09:54:14 +0000
In-Reply-To: <CAD6AjGTTBnJhAdpcxGW0VWaym-Lcw9eHot4Mw=xNKULyEDUyvg@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Hi Cameron,
On Sun, 2011-11-06 at 21:31 -0800, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>
> There are a variety of reasons. Most prominent is that if the issue
> is lack of IPv4 addresses (public and private), dual-stack does not
> solve this problem, each device still gets an IPv4 address. Another
> major issue is that in GSM/UMTS (3GPP pre-release 9), having
> dual-stack means having 2 attachments to the network, one for v4 and
> one for v6. Most mobile providers pay for most of their network kit
> in terms of these attachments known as PDP. Consequently, dual-stack
> doubles the of the packet-core network. If we take the licensing and
> contractual parts out of the equations, double the attachments means
> double the signalling and mobility events ... resulting in double the
> CPU / Memory / blah ...
That'll probably explain it... Thanks. :)
> LTE does not have the dual attachment problem since there is the
> concept of having v4 and v6 in one attachment, but it does not change
> the fact that there are not enough IPv4 addresses to go around,
> especially from a strategic planning perspective (let's design this
> once for 5 to 10+ year life ...)
If only the UK was as far ahead on LTE as the US!
Tom
