Yes Jens, you are right, its more like a dead thing but NAT64 is not supported on all cisco platforms so to start with the old equipments its necessary to use the dead RFC. Please suggest if there is any alternative to what I've been trying to achieve.
Regards, Aftab A. Siddiqui On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 3:04 PM, Jens Link <[email protected]> wrote: > Mack McBride <[email protected]> writes: > > > You need DNS64 as well as NAT64. > > NAT-PT is just NAT64 without additional support for FTP and SIP and such. > > I always thought NAT-PT is dead for quite some time now. > > RFC4966 - Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol > Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status > > Jens > -- > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > | Foelderichstr. 40 | 13595 Berlin, Germany | +49-151-18721264 | > | http://blog.quux.de | jabber: [email protected] | ------------------- | > ------------------------------------------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] > https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp > archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/ > _______________________________________________ cisco-nsp mailing list [email protected] https://puck.nether.net/mailman/listinfo/cisco-nsp archive at http://puck.nether.net/pipermail/cisco-nsp/
