In message <[email protected]> Brian E Carpenter writes: > 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
Brian, I was responding to the question: > >> Having embedded DNS functionality in the CPE is sort of a newish > >> requirement, yes? Having DNS in the CPE is not a new requirement (at least in practice). Extending the requirement to include DNS64 is new. > How it knows which hosts are IPv6-only is another mystery. I'm not if favor of using IPv4 in IPv6 and then having a NAT to turn the IPv6 addresses into a single IPv4. I agree with a prior comment that this is complexity added with no significant gain. Curtis _______________________________________________ homenet mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet
