RE: comments on draft-durand-v6ops-assisted-tunneling-requirement s-00 .txt

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

>>
>> There are no NATs in mobile phones today since there is no use
>> for them and I sure hope never to see them. I think most people
>> would agree.
>
>Let me disagree.
>The scenario is a remote location or road warrior where the only 
>possible/realistic
>connectivity is through 3GPP/3GPP2. That may be an intermittent case 
>when 802.11
>is not available.
>I'd like to get a 3GPP network attachment on a computer 
>(PCMCIA/PCI/USB/Bluetooth...)
>or 802.11 access point and run a NAT there. It would act as a router 
>for the rest of my network.
>Now, any device within my network that desire to get IPv6 connectivity
>will have to go through that NAT.

You wouldn't need or want a NAT for that.
We are recommending that there should be IPv6 support (native
if possible otherwise tunnelled) by the 3GPP/2 operator. That's
the essence of the 3GPP analysis draft. So you can make your
terminal/laptop into an IPv6 mobile router (tunnelling or native
to the 3gpp/2 operator) and not get into the NAT headache. Since
there is a better solution than NAT I think we should use it.

/Karim