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

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


On Apr 15, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB) wrote:


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.

Yes I want it for my IPv4 connections.

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.


Of course, but I though we were talking about the case where the 3GPP
ISP was not (yet) offering IPv6 service.

- Alain.