On Mon, Aug 1, 2011 at 8:32 AM, Rémi Després <[email protected]> wrote: > > Le 1 août 2011 à 16:36, Cameron Byrne a écrit : > >> are you in fact proposing that 3GPP IPv4v6 bearers be _replaced_ by >> IPv6-only bearers with IPv4/IPv6 translation, or that both should coexist to >> widen the number of options? >> > > Both do exist today. I have had the latter in beta for over a year and it > will go to production soon. > > Thank you for sharing this information. > I infer that the extra header size of 20 octets that 4V6 Translation has, > compared to the IPv4v6 Bearer, isn't considered a show stopper. > Hopefully, we won't hear too much of the header size argument in the future. > Regards, > RD >
I don't think headers are the issue, yes, some bit twiddlers will disagree. The challenge is getting the UE software implemented. Take IPv6 for example. Many operators have been asking for support for years, and now Nokia is closing down Symbian. With Symbian gone as a platform for new phones (effective now in many operators), there will be ZERO IPv6 handsets available for GSM/UMTS that you can purchase. I feel confident this will change, but i just want to share with you the fact that the UE ecosystem is a very complex balance of power between chipsets / Mobile OS / OEM / and service provider. New features are very hard to get committed, especially when NAT444 and NAT44 + IPv6 just work today in the mobile router segment. Cameron _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
