RE: 3gpp transition solutions, revision -02

["Hesham Soliman (EAB)" <hesham.soliman@era.ericsson.se>]

  > >   > > => In theory, yes. But we need to get an IP n IP profile
  > >   > > for ROHC. Pretty easily done.
  > >   > >
  > >   >
  > >   > ok, and that sounds better than using translation mechanisms.
  > > 
  > > => Sorry, I don't think this has anything to do with replacing
  > > translation. We're talking about two different cases. I was
  > > trying to explain that tunnelling overhead, over the air interface
  > > can be removed with ROHC. That doesn't mean that IPv6 UEs will
  > > not talk to IPv4 UEs.
  > 
  > What is the plan for apps that are broken by NAT? 

=> Broken by NATv4 or NAT-PT or both? If both, then 
there is no difference.

Won't the
  > supported apps be relatively few, and better handled by dual stack
  > application proxies than by NAT-PT?

=> I'm sure there will be application proxies for 
well-known and popular apps (HTTP, email ...etc), but not for 
every single one. 

I understood that the discussion was focused on IMS
signalling for p2p apps. 3GPP mandates that this
be done using IPv6. The good thing about that is 
that it encourages IPv6 deployment and thanks to this
decision every phone vendor will support v6, if they
haven't already. 

As for availability of apps on NAT-PT, this is probably
getting a bit speculative for me. I don't know if it's
too difficult to port the NATv4 ones to NAT-PT, but anyway
if I have to guess I would say that if there is enough demand, 
I'm sure it will be done. 

Hesham