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

From: "Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 20:16:21 +0200

>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Let me disagree.
>> The scenario is a remote location or road warrior where the only
>> possible/realistic
>> connectivity is through 3GPP/3GPP2. That may be an intermittent case
>> when 802.11
>> is not available.
>> I'd like to get a 3GPP network attachment on a computer
>> (PCMCIA/PCI/USB/Bluetooth...)
>> or 802.11 access point and run a NAT there. It would act as a router
>> for the rest of my network.
>> Now, any device within my network that desire to get IPv6
connectivity
>> will have to go through that NAT.
>
> You wouldn't need or want a NAT for that.

Yes I want it for my IPv4 connections.

Karim: Fine but this is not your typical mobile phone today and
I don't think we should be making IPv6 designs based on possible
future NAT proliferation in mobile phones. Basically I don't see
why we need a special mechanism that supports NAT traversal when
it's not applicable now or in the foreseeable future and more
importantly when we don't want to see this happening. Looking at
it from an apps viewpoint, if I anyway need to use a NAT traversal
protocol I might as well use IPv4-only for my p2p, push etc. app.s
So I don't see a case for IPv6 access through NATs in the
3gpp/2 world. However there obviously is a case for it in
fixed ISPs where NATs are present in customer networks, so the
mechanism is useful.

> 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.

Karim: That case is excluded by the 3GPP analysis draft. We assume
and recommend some form of support from the 3gpp operator.

/Karim

---

From: Alain Durand <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 15 Apr 2004 11:55:50 -0700

On Apr 15, 2004, at 11:16 AM, Karim El-Malki (HF/EAB) wrote:

> future NAT proliferation in mobile phones.

I would not bet 0.10$ on that. IPv4 NAT is everywhere. You will be 
assimilated....
(quote from a famous old IETF T-Shirt)

Note: I am not a proponent of NAT. Just a pragmatic person.

	- Alain.