1 / 14

Mobile Use Case and Transition Guide

Looking Ahead To New Draft Versions draft-zhou-v6ops-mobile-use-case draft-tsou-v6ops-mobile-transition-guide Cathy Zhou Tina Tsou Tom Taylor. Mobile Use Case and Transition Guide. Background. Basic mobile transition use case analysis is RFC 4215 (2005) Lots of tool development since then

verena
Download Presentation

Mobile Use Case and Transition Guide

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Looking Ahead To New Draft Versions draft-zhou-v6ops-mobile-use-case draft-tsou-v6ops-mobile-transition-guide Cathy Zhou Tina Tsou Tom Taylor Mobile Use Case and Transition Guide V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79

  2. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Background • Basic mobile transition use case analysis is RFC 4215 (2005) • Lots of tool development since then • draft-korhonen-v6ops-3gpp-eps provides an architectural update • draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks looks in more detail than RFC 4215 into the question of NAT placement • draft-zhou-v6ops-mobile-use-case looks at the case of an operator under greater pressure than most, and adds detail to the analysis of deployment alternatives

  3. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Mobile Architecture (LTE) IPv4 or IPv6 Internet GTP-U or PMIPv6 tunnel IPv4 / IPv6 provider-owned packet data network eNodeB Serving GW PDN GW UE Possible domain boundary Provider or partner content and applications GTP tunnel Serving Gateway (SGW) replaces SGSN Packet Data Network Gateway (PDN GW) replaces GGSN

  4. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Scenarios • RFC 4215 has the following scenarios: • Dual Stack UE connecting to IPv4 and IPv6 nodes • IPv6 UE connecting to an IPv6 node through an IPv4 network • IPv4 UE connecting to an IPv4 node through an IPv6 network • IPv6 UE connecting to an IPv4 node • IPv4 UE connecting to an IPv6 node • UE connecting to a node in an IPv4 network through IMS • Two IPv6 IMS connected via an IPv4 network "IMS" analysis applies to other distributed applications. • What has newer work contributed to the analysis?

  5. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Dual Stack UE connecting to IPv4 and IPv6 nodes • Details: no access network support for IPv6 • Stage of migration: very early • RFC 4215 advice (private IPv4 covered in separate slide): • UE to IPv6 node should tunnel IPv6 in IPv4 • Tunneling mechanism to be determined • IPv6 communication is preferred to IPv4 communication going through IPv4 NATs to the same dual stack peer node. • Operators strongly urged to IPv6-enable the SGSN and GGSN (SGW and PDN GW in LTE) as soon as possible • More recent work: more tunneling mechanisms, 6rd. 3GPP updates to make IPv6 operation easier [Korhonen]. • Proposal: recommend 6rd for this very early stage.

  6. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 IPv6 UE to IPv6 node through IPv4 network • Details: access network IPv6-enabled, edge of IPv4 network somewhere beyond GGSN (PDN GW in LTE) • Stage of migration: early • RFC 4215 advice: network-initiated IPv6-in-IPv4 tunnel • Could be static (within the operator's network) or dynamic • Static tunnels operationally unscalable, should be eased by making parts of backbone dual stack as growth requires it • More recent work: 6PE, gateway initiated 6rd (draft-tsou-softwire-gwinit-6rd). • Proposal: provide pointers to the more recent work

  7. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 IPv4 UE to IPv4 node through IPv6 network • Details: as it says • Stage of migration: should not occur, because intervening network is likely to be dual stack rather than pure IPv6, pending phaseout of IPv4 UEs. • RFC 4215 advice: none • More recent work: gateway initiated dual stack • Proposal: agree with RFC 4215. Do not pursue further.

  8. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 IPv6 UE connecting to an IPv4 node • Details: no specific assumptions on network • Stage of migration: late. Dual stack UE recommended until IPv6 usage is dominant. • RFC 4215 advice: use special-purpose rather than general-purpose translation mechanisms. Choice of location in operator or external network. • More recent work: NAT-PT deprecated. Current BEHAVE work on NAT 64. [Korhonen] recommends that new applications requiring direct end-to-end connectivity be built on IPv6. • Proposal: review RFC 4215 recommendation to see if general NAT 64 should be used instead.

  9. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 IPv4 UE connecting to an IPv6 node • Details: legacy IPv4 UE connecting to new IPv6 applications. • Stage of migration: late • RFC 4215 advice: UE won't be able to take advantage of the new application features even if the transport issue is solved. Applications will typically be proxied in any event. No action required. • More recent work: not dealt with as a specific issue in [Korhonen] or draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks. Possible that applications will be dual stack. • Proposal: accept RFC 4215 conclusion. No further discussion.

  10. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 A Really Quick Look At IMS IMS provides multimedia calls QOS-controlled media path I-CSCF Application Server SIP and SDP signalling P-CSCF S-CSCF UE Signalling P-CSCF Other node Media

  11. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Call between UE and a node in an IPv4 network through IMS • Details: UE is IPv6. Other node is non-3GPP. RFC 4215 makes the assumption that IMS is IPv6-only, based on an outdated 3GPP specification. Reasonable to accept assumption for late stages of migration. • Stage of migration: late. • RFC 4215 advice: interworking required. RFC 4215 provides challenges involved at application level (SIP and SDP signalling), and urges work on solutions in IETF. Example solution based on use of application-level gateway found to be unsatisfactory. • More recent work: ICE (RFC 5245), other SIP and SDP updates. Requirement to use ICE is controversial. • Proposal: use as example of challenges for application update.

  12. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Two IPv6 IMS Connected via an IPv4 Network • Details: two IPv6 IMS islands connected by an IPv4 network. E.g., transit path between P-CSCF and S-CSCF includes an IPv4 network. • Stage of migration: early • RFC 4215 advice: special case of earlier slide (#6). Use IPv6-in-IPv4 tunneling. • More recent work: as for slide 6. • Proposal: nothing further to add.

  13. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Use of Private Addresses • RFC 4215 says use of NAT will get expensive as size goes up. • Current work on Large Scale NAT (LSN). Also work on reducing need for IPv4 addresses at dual stack UEs (gateway initiated dual stack lite). • [Korhonen] points out that size of 10.0.0.0 address space is a good match for number of UEs served by a PDN gateway • draft-ietf-v6ops-v6-in-mobile-networks analyzes use of NATs in depth • Proposal: topic is already well covered and does not need further discussion.

  14. V6OPS Mobile Transition IETF 79 Conclusion • Despite all the past and ongoing work, there are still a few things to say about IPv6 transition in the mobility case • Will update draft-tsou-v6ops-mobile-transition-guide to say what has been presented on these slides • Value as a stand-alone document can be reviewed later

More Related