Subject: Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-05

From: Joel Jaeggli <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 20:56:08 -0800

This is tongue and cheek, and, like most ietf contributions is me as an individual.

The irony that someone is leaving money on the table in the context of an ipv6 deployment should be lost on no-one.  If there's on the that mobile operators know how to do it's bill for stuff, so send the laywers off to negotiate some nni's. 

On the dual license front that sounds like an opportunity for a discount. 

I've not been billed for ipv4 roaming before in fact back at the beginning it happened with some degree of frequency, I doubt that the carriers involved seriously impacted their long term profitability by accidently providing decent service.

"Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <[email-masked]> wrote:

>On 1/23/11 8:27 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
>> Jan,
>> ==========
>> "I agree that billing needs to be fixed (and here goes away my free
>> mobile communication), but this can't be basis for refusing IPv6 PDP
>> context in roaming mode. If you can't charge it, then it's free. If you
>> can or want to charge it, charge it. But please don't suggest people to
>> drop PDP contexts."
>> ==========
>>
>> Sorry, the business folks believe otherwise.  No free rides.  The only
>> reason it is free for you today is that the mobile providers don't
>> know what i happening.
>>
>> Today, our beta IPv6 APN is not announced to roamers at all.
>
>Beta APNs of our mobile operators (public pilot testing for users) are 
>annonced to roamers. Why not? If foreign operator sends a bill, it gets 
>charged to customer. Otherwise not :)
>
>>
>> As we go to production, we will be rejecting IPv6 PDP from roaming
>> partners that have not explicitly updated the roaming agreements to
>> include IPv6, which validates that the end to end billing process will
>> work correctly.
>
>This might severly speed-up the process of fixing the billing schema 
>around the world.
>
>/jan
>
>_______________________________________________
>v6ops mailing list
>[email-masked]
>https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>

---

From: Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 23 Jan 2011 21:33:40 -0800

> The irony that someone is leaving money on the table in the context of an ipv6 deployment should be lost on no-one.  If there's on the that mobile operators know how to do it's bill for stuff, so s…

Lawyers cost money.  IPv6 does not make money over IPv4.  Just like
always, there is no business case for ipv6.  And i'ts not just lawyers
and NNIs, there are massive billing systems that process billions of
CDRs a day, changing them to read a 128 bit field instead of a 32 bit
field is not easy.  Like many things, it may seem easy from a
distance.

> On the dual license front that sounds like an opportunity for a discount.

Once again, no revenue, no business case, no effort.  Furthermore,
with roaming, how do i get the SGSNs in South Africa and Columbia and
Taiwan to all play nice in the same way at the same time?  I can't.
Therefore i believe the fallback mechanism is critical.  People say
there will be no flag day for the Internet, well ... no flag day for
mobile roaming either.

> I've not been billed for ipv4 roaming before in fact back at the beginning it happened with some degree of frequency, I doubt that the carriers involved seriously impacted their long term profitabi…

Data roaming is real money. When it does not bill correctly, it is
called "revenue leakage" and it gets the business folks worked up
quick, and the business folks will sink any well intentioned IPv6
efforts if they think money will be lost (see AAAA white-listing ...).
 I would love to provide Jan free IPv6 service, but what i would like
to do more is make IPv6 a prime time production service that can take
the place of IPv4. To get there, some mobile roaming fallback
mechanism will be required.

You are right, the revenue leakage on a few beta APNs is nothing
today.  But, i plan on selling v6 handsets in stores soon. Power it on
and go, the customer does not know or care about ipv6.  When 500,000
of these phones are live by the end of the year, that is not trivial
revenue leakage. And if that number goes to 5 million by the end of
2012...

Cameron

---

From: Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 14:55:40 +0900

> there will be no flag day for the Internet, well ... no flag day for

In the abstract...

When I think about IPv6 transition things, I think one of the big
lessons I'm learning is that controlled, incremental, unilateral
deployment has to be possible.  There have perhaps been too many
scenarios that require either global or "near global" coordinated
action.

Anything that enables Internet players (access, content, mobile, ...)
to deploy IPv6 in a controlled manner, without requiring simultaneous
efforts from external entities is essential.  Perhaps "it" has high
operational cognitive load, or creates more transition work for folks
using "it", or temporarily creates fractured IPv6 support.  But if the
end result is that IPv6 gets rolled out with the extra overhead of
having to remove the transition hack, then that's a heck of a lot
better than the outcome of the previous 15 years.

I don't know what this means in terms of 3GPP architecture, but I
suspect I'm agreeing with Cameron (at least in spirit since I don't
pretend of have full grasp of 3GPP, despite having read this draft).

---

From: [email-masked]
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 09:10:35 +0200

From:   Erik Kline <[email-masked]>
To:     Cameron Byrne <[email-masked]>
Cc:     [email-masked], "Jan Zorz @ go6.si" <[email-masked]>
Date:   24-01-11 07:56
Subject:        Re: [v6ops] Fwd: New Version Notification for 
draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps-05
Sent by:        [email-masked]

In the abstract...

/// True. This does apply to most of the situations. If we had to 
coordinate anything we made with at least one other operator, neither of 
us talking here will probably have ever achieved any IPv6 deployment.

/// There is a big difference between a content provider and a mobile 
operator deployment. For instance you assume that 0.05% of your users 
might be broken (is it still the case? to what extent are they broken? are 
they simply slow?) if you announce AAAA worldwide. However you know for 
sure that if you don't, all the service will be flowing through IPv4.
Now, imagine the following. Your operator has rolled out IPv6 service 
without telling you about that. As the average user you should not care. 
You go to, say, Japan, where they know there might be billing issues and 
have blocked the IPv6 PDP instead of looking into their billing issues. 
Most likely by that time (1-2 years) we will not be using the R8-R9 with 
dual stack worldwide, and even worse, older core network elements 
worldwide will still be on R5, R6 without any plans to go further. This 
folks do have knowledge of IPv6 PDP most likely, however have no idea 
about any fallback. Your handset does not have knowledge of fallback 
either.
What happens is that you switch on your phone in Japan and see how it 
unsuccessfully struggles to connect to the data network and fails. There 
will most likely be no error message, and the only way you can correct 
things is by manually selecting an IPv4 APN.
Now, this IS (not MAY be) broken service for 100% of customers.

Best,
Roman