Le 1 août 2011 à 18:49, Cameron Byrne a écrit : > 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.
Agreed. > 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. Same understanding. > New > features are very hard to get committed, especially when NAT444 and > NAT44 + IPv6 just work today in the mobile router segment. Agreed. As a matter of fact, adding 4rd to IPv6, in order to statelessly provide a few IPv5 incoming ports to customers, in addition to their outgoing ports of NAT444, might be a way to avoid the need for PCP. (If you find this subject too controversial, it's fine with me to avoid opening it now, but if don't, why not). Regards, RD > > Cameron _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
