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

["Soliman Hesham" <H.Soliman@flarion.com>]

 > > You wouldn't need or want a NAT for that.
 > 
 > Yes I want it for my IPv4 connections.

=> No you don't. There is another alternative:
use multiple PDP contexts. It's not a nice thing
but it's sure better and more realistic (in terms 
of what mobile vendors are likely to support)
than a NAT. Note that there will likely be a NAT
in the core net anyway, so the NAT in the UE is useless.

Hesham

 > 
 > > 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.
 > 
 > 

========================================================
This email may contain confidential and privileged material for the sole
use of the intended recipient.  Any review or distribution by others is 
strictly prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient please contact
the sender and delete all copies.
========================================================