purposely left this part unchanged. The evolved bearer does not even support EPS dedicated bearers for QoS purposes on the eNodeB and the SGW parts, mainly because the Policy and Charging Control (PCC) system and the PGW has no knowledge of the addressing used on the eNodeB and the SGW. If QoS and PCC are desired, those apply only for the PGW terminated traffic. Address management of the current 3GPP system is not impacted either. The evolved bearer design is such that an operator deploying those is responsible for configuring addressing at the eNodeB and the SGW level using non-3GPP means. Since the evolved bearer does not preserve prefixes during handovers, there is no need for address manage- ment and IP mobility enabling signaling either. GTP-U [25] is entirely untouched. This applies to GTP User Plane (GTP-U) over S5/S8/S1-U interfaces. GTP-C [26] may need to be enhanced for S11-interface use between the MME and the SGW. We need to be able to tell the SGW that a specific S1-U tunnel does not have a corresponding S5/S8 GTP-U tunnel. S1-MME interface [27] needs to be enhanced to carry the evolved bearer capability and provisioning information from the MME to the eNodeB. An enumerated informa- tion element would be included, for example, into the Initial Context Setup Request sent from the MME to the eNodeB. The enumerated information element indicates whether: 1) the eNodeB can be activated as a breakout/router, 2) the SGW can be activated as a breakout/router or 3) both can be activated. Additionally, there is a need for a new infor- mation element in the S1-MME signaling to indicate that the eNodeB actually supports Deploying IPv6 in 3GPP Networks the evolved bearer functionality. This information could be placed into the Initial UE message or into the Uplink NAS Transport message. Based on this indication and the subscription information, the MME knows whether further S1 and S11 procedures are needed for evolved bearer purposes. NAS signaling would benefit from an explicit indication whether the UE supports