On 31/07/2012 22:45, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Michael Thomas writes:
>
>> On 07/31/2012 01:00 AM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2012 01:20, Michael Thomas wrote:
>>>> On 07/30/2012 05:10 PM, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>>>>> If you see some advantage that solves the IPv4 address depletion (a
>>>>> big point of the transition to IPv6 exercise), then I've missed it.
>>>>> If so, please point out what I missed.
>>>> No, not at all and not the point. I'm just of the mind that if
>>>> we believe that v6 is really, really ready to go there shouldn't
>>>> be any problem in substituting rfc1918 v4 space with v6 ULA
>>>> space. If that modest change leads to trouble...
>>> Well, it surely requires a DNS64 resolver in the CPE too.
>>>
>> Having embedded DNS functionality in the CPE is sort of a newish
>> requirement, yes? If we think that's inevitable for real homenets,
>> maybe this is a means of moving the ball forward?
>>
>> Mike
>
>
> This requirement is Not at all new.
>
> Most low endish CPE get a single IPv4 address from the provider, do
> NAT, offer PI addresses on the "home" side, offer themselves as DNS
> resolvers on the home side. Act as a DNS cache using the
> nameserver(s) offerred by the service provider as forwarders.
>
> Most home users get the CPE from the provider and the providers like
> having a resolver in the CPE so today this is a business requirement,
> not an IETF requirement.
That's true. My point was that the CPE resolver will have to be upgraded
to support DNS64 for, and *only* for, IPv6-only hosts. How it knows
which hosts are IPv6-only is another mystery.
Brian
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
