Hi Med, > > Med: If the network is IPv6-only (likely the major base of UEs would be > IPv6-enabled, right?), the use of NAT64 would be more appropriate (hence > avoiding tunnelling) that crossing a NAT44 device. No? > For some operators, NAT64 may make more sense; for others, GI-DS-lite may be more useful. In this end, GI-DS-lite just provides a simple way to address the IPv4 exhaustion issue w/o change in the MH. I think there is value for IETF to work on it.
Cheers, Yiu
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
