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

[<juha.wiljakka@nokia.com>]

 Hi all!

This has been a good discussion. I also agree on the principle having no NAT in the UE.

Karim commented in an earlier e-mail:
"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. So there is nothing today that hints at this
development and I think we should not be proposing solutions
that are compatible with this.

Mobile manufacturers will be shipping dual-stack mobile terminals
and that is what we should be (and are) favouring. If a PAN is
needed behind the terminal then it's an excellent case for using
IPv6."

Yes, *if* (Bluetooth) PAN is needed behind the terminal, just use IPv6 for that. That's a very simple guideline.

Cheers,
	 -Juha-

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org [mailto:owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org]On
Behalf Of ext Soliman Hesham
Sent: 16 April, 2004 07:28

 > > 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