[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

IPv6 mistakes, was: Re: Looking for an IPv6 naysayer...

>> I think you'll be in for a surprise here, too. The 4G transition is already underway. For the vendors where 4G means LTE, IPv6 is the native protocol and IPv4 requires a certain amount of hackery to operate.
>> In the WiMax case (Gee, thanks, SPRINT), things are a bit murkier, but, I think you will see WiMax go IPv6 pretty quickly as well.
>> Yes, it will take a little longer to retire the 3G system(s) than many other parts of the internet, but, I think you will see most of it going away in the 5-7 year range.
> This is not quite the case.  2G / 3G / 4G largely refers to radio
> interface aspects, and the packet core that moves IP packets is
> largely the same.  I have a 5 year old 2G/GSM Nokia phone that support
> IPv6 over cellular just fine on my network today.
Sure, there are some 3G systems that support IPv6, but, most carriers will
probably roll IPv6 out as part of their 4G upgrade from what I have seen.

> There are several LTE deployments around the world that are IPv4 only.
I think if you look under the hood, they may only provide internet routing
for IPv4, but, I don't think they are IPv4 only across the radio.

> There is no hackery require to make IPv4 work in LTE.  LTE supports
> IPv4, IPv6, and IPv4v6 bearers all the same... its just an option from
> the core perspective, handset / chipset makers like to limit the
> options to keep cost and variability down.
My understanding (admittedly second hand, so perhaps the engineer
explaining it to me was mistaken) was that LTE was IPv6 and that IPv4
was implemented on the radio side essentially as a 4in6 tunnel with a
very very short-term DHCP lease for the v4 address.

> The pressure needs to be applied to the handset makers, they are
> squarely the "long pole in the tent" here.
Yep. In the US, at least, the carriers have an unfortunately large ability
to do that. In this case, it will prove helpful. In most cases, it has proven
to be rather strongly contrary to the consumer's best interests.