 the evolved bearer. As already discussed in Section 6.2.2 the NAS signaling could be enhanced, for example, with one evolved capability bit in the UE network capability information element in the Attach Request NAS message. The eNodeB and the MME would use this information to determine whether anything needs to be prepared in the network side for the evolved bearer. An eNodeB and a SGW will have a larger impact. First, both nodes need to be enhanced with an IP router functionality and relevant IPv6 stack features at the user plane. Fur- thermore, the eNodeB takes an additional impact as it needs to have modified PDCP implementation as well as enhancement on the S1-MME interface. It should be noted that the SGW does not need to support the evolved bearer if the eNodeB does, which allows for reducing the impact into a single network node out of two. Regarding the SGW impact there would now be a 'new type' of bearer. More specifically the S1-U bearer for SGW terminated/breakout traffic has no matching S5/S8 bearer towards the PGW. A PGW is not impacted at all unless the SGW and the PGW are the same combined node and the SGW implements the evolved bearer. PDCP is impacted because the whole evolved bearer concept relies on its extensions. An MME is impacted since we need to enhance the S1-MME interface for two purposes: carrying the evolved capability/provisioning indication and activating the S1-U GTP tun- nels for the SGW terminated/breakout traffic. The default behavior is that no evolved bearers get established and the additional evolved bearer related information elements are just ignored. X2 interface [28] between evolved Node Bs (eNodeBs) during the handover has no impact since our evolved bearer does not need anything from it. The amount of signaling does increase in a number of messages when the SGW break- out/router gets activated. However, that still only concerns S1 signaling and only the part that is sufficient to set up an S1-U tunnel. There is no additional PCC, S5/S8, DNS name resolving, or subscripti