RE: 3gpp-analysis-05: miscellaneous non-critical issues

["Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <karim.el-malki@ericsson.com>]

 > On Fri, 26 Sep 2003, Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB) wrote:
 > >  >  JW: 
 > >  >       => can we agree on Pekka's suggestion and just remove
 > >  >       "native" from Pekka's text?
 > > 
 > > Pekka's understanding was that we killed the "tunneled IPv6 part".
 > > I don't think that is what has been done in the document, 
 > since now it just
 > > specifies better when tunneling may be useful. Since we do 
 > talk about
 > > a case where tunnelling can be useful we should keep the 
 > sentence as is
 > > so that it mentions native and tunneled. It was written on 
 > purpose not
 > > to make it sound like it was only "native" that we were 
 > talking about
 > > by explicitly writing native or tunneled.
 > 
 > I'm not sure how you read that we're recommending tunneling 
 > (excerpt below
 > *).  That certainly isn't the intent.  Perhaps it needs to 
 > be reworded to
 > be more explicit.

It simply says "If the 3GPP network does not support IPv6 PDP contexts,
and an application on the UE needs to communicate with an IPv6(-only)
node, the UE may activate an IPv4 PDP context and encapsulate
IPv6 packets in IPv4 packets using a tunneling mechanism."
 
 > My point of removing "native or tunneled" is that because 
 > there should not 
 > be any (or close to any) tunneled connectivity (from the UE) 
 > in the first 
 > place, pointing it out here is irrelevant.

What leads you to this conclusion? Do you have practical experience
that leads you to this view? I have practical experience of this
tunneled service in real mobile networks that proves the opposite of what
you are saying. I can see that you are expressing a strong opinion but I
have not read and cannot see a reason for it from what I know about
IPv6 in mobile networks. There is always a starting point for the
introduction of IPv6 and we must consider this case.
/Karim