> I agree with you that 464XLAT is a better solution and the world > should use it as much as possible. > > But for those already deployed DNS64 and can't move to 464XLAT soon > (possibly due to lack of CLAT support, e.g. in some residential > gateways), wouldn't Momoka's draft help? If Momoka adds statements > in a new version telling people to consider 464XLAT first, will it > be acceptable to you? Thanks.
NAT64 without 464xlat is a rather broken way of providing access to the IPv4 internet because it cannot deal with IPv4 literals. So instead of creating documents for every possible protocol that uses IPv4 literals, why not create one document that describes how to deal with IPv4 literals in existing protocols in the context of NAT64? _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
