FYI.
T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch
As far as i know, this is the first Android phone that support IPv6 on
the GSM/UMTS mobile interface. Previous version of Android phones
supported IPv6 on WiFi and LTE.
Cameron
FYI.
T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch
Very good.
As far as i know, this is the first Android phone that support IPv6 on
the GSM/UMTS mobile interface. Previous version of Android phones
supported IPv6 on WiFi and LTE.
My iPhone (old 3G, 4.2.1) supports v6 on wifi (I can see it at the other
end of connections; the
UI status page refuses to admit to ipv6 though.) It appears to use only
eui64 addresses and not
privacy ones (this from perusing web and mail logs at the server end).
I don't know about any other medium since as far as I can see, AT&T's
network doesn't (yet)
support v6 on umts or gsm/edge 
-- Pete
The cellular radios firmware doesn't support ipv6(on your iPhone)...
FYI.
T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouch
Very, very good. I hope T-Mobile UK (and elsewhere in the world) take
heed.
I have to wonder why they've chosen to go with IPv6-only & DNS/NAT64
instead of a dual-stack approach. Is there a particular restriction that
prevents this?
As far as i know, this is the first Android phone that support IPv6 on
the GSM/UMTS mobile interface. Previous version of Android phones
supported IPv6 on WiFi and LTE.
Indeed, the 'Network Info II' application will show you the IPv6
addresses gained on WiFi interfaces (if anyone's interested). My Galaxy
S (unlocked/orig.) does this very well.
I wonder if it's possible to provide IPv6 support for UMTS/GSM via
firmware and/or software updates from Samsung?
Tom
Is there any way this beta can be used in conjunction with other t-mobile
data products (such as pre or post paid SIMs used in data cards/USB
dongles)?
FYI.
T-Mobile USA now has opt-in beta support for an Android phone on IPv6,
more info here https://sites.google.com/site/tmoipv6/lg-mytouchVery, very good. I hope T-Mobile UK (and elsewhere in the world) take
heed.I have to wonder why they've chosen to go with IPv6-only & DNS/NAT64
instead of a dual-stack approach. Is there a particular restriction that
prevents this?
There are a variety of reasons. Most prominent is that if the issue
is lack of IPv4 addresses (public and private), dual-stack does not
solve this problem, each device still gets an IPv4 address. Another
major issue is that in GSM/UMTS (3GPP pre-release 9), having
dual-stack means having 2 attachments to the network, one for v4 and
one for v6. Most mobile providers pay for most of their network kit
in terms of these attachments known as PDP. Consequently, dual-stack
doubles the of the packet-core network. If we take the licensing and
contractual parts out of the equations, double the attachments means
double the signalling and mobility events ... resulting in double the
CPU / Memory / blah ...
LTE does not have the dual attachment problem since there is the
concept of having v4 and v6 in one attachment, but it does not change
the fact that there are not enough IPv4 addresses to go around,
especially from a strategic planning perspective (let's design this
once for 5 to 10+ year life ...)
As far as i know, this is the first Android phone that support IPv6 on
the GSM/UMTS mobile interface. Previous version of Android phones
supported IPv6 on WiFi and LTE.Indeed, the 'Network Info II' application will show you the IPv6
addresses gained on WiFi interfaces (if anyone's interested). My Galaxy
S (unlocked/orig.) does this very well.I wonder if it's possible to provide IPv6 support for UMTS/GSM via
firmware and/or software updates from Samsung?
That's a good question for Samsung. Most vendors would rather have
you buy a new device
CB
Actually, GTPv2 with v4v6 bearer works in GSM/UMTS as well, but one has to software upgrade all components to make sure it's supported. Unfortunately this is still a future roadmap item for a lot of vendors.
This of course needs to be supported in the end user devices as well, but the LTE dongles when in 2G/3G will hopefully still support this.
LTE does not have the dual attachment problem since there is the
concept of having v4 and v6 in one attachment, but it does not change
the fact that there are not enough IPv4 addresses to go around,
especially from a strategic planning perspective (let's design this
once for 5 to 10+ year life ...)
Most networks seem to dish out address space behind a LSN box these days.
I have three dongle things from three networks in the UK, none of them give me a public address.
Hi Cameron,
There are a variety of reasons. Most prominent is that if the issue
is lack of IPv4 addresses (public and private), dual-stack does not
solve this problem, each device still gets an IPv4 address. Another
major issue is that in GSM/UMTS (3GPP pre-release 9), having
dual-stack means having 2 attachments to the network, one for v4 and
one for v6. Most mobile providers pay for most of their network kit
in terms of these attachments known as PDP. Consequently, dual-stack
doubles the of the packet-core network. If we take the licensing and
contractual parts out of the equations, double the attachments means
double the signalling and mobility events ... resulting in double the
CPU / Memory / blah ...
That'll probably explain it... Thanks. 
LTE does not have the dual attachment problem since there is the
concept of having v4 and v6 in one attachment, but it does not change
the fact that there are not enough IPv4 addresses to go around,
especially from a strategic planning perspective (let's design this
once for 5 to 10+ year life ...)
If only the UK was as far ahead on LTE as the US!
Tom
Though there is at least one UK provider giving out fixed addresses
(single and routed netblocks) on 3g