RE: NAT-PT Applicabilty for 3GPP

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

I brought up the same issue during the DT work and agree with Randy's
point that if a scenario exists that requires a subset of NAT-PT (i.e. 3GPP
IMS) then it does not necessarily imply that NAT-PT as specified in RFC 2766
is applicable. The draft could however point out which parts of NAT-PT are
applicable in this case.

Regarding the actual SIP solution there is a reference in 3gpp-analysis-07
to draft-elmalki-sipping-3gpp-translator-00. Following Margaret's comments
last time and the recommendation in draft-ietf-3gpp-analysis it is on the
SIPPING agenda this time. For those who may be interested here's a new version
of the draft:
http://standards.ericsson.net/karim/draft-elmalki-sipping-3gpp-translator-00.txt

/Karim

 > -----Original Message-----
 > From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
 > Behalf Of Randy Bush
 > Sent: den 13 november 2003 00:25
 > To: Suresh Satapati
 > Cc: v6ops@ops.ietf.org
 > Subject: Re: NAT-PT Applicabilty for 3GPP
 > 
 > 
 > > In the above, though a SIP-specific translation mechanism is being
 > > recommended, I do not see how the recommended solution will be
 > > fundamentally different from NAT-PT. In this sense, the 
 > applicability
 > > of NAT-PT is still valid.
 > 
 > if A is a proper subset of B, a need for A does not mandate B,
 > especially if A is a very localized hack and B is global, generic,
 > and questionable.
 > 
 > randy
 > 
 >