On 07/08/2012 16:48, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
> In message <[email protected]>
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
>  
>> On 02/08/2012 06:58, Mikael Abrahamsson wrote:
>>> On Wed, 1 Aug 2012, Curtis Villamizar wrote:
>>>
>>>> Same answer as one given on that thread.  If a device can support
>>>> IPv4, then use NAT4.  If a device can only support IPv6, then the
>>>> DNS64 belongs on the IPv6-only device.  To that device all host return
>>> Am I interpreting you correctly in that you're saying that an IPv6 only
>>> device should have a built in resolver that does DNS64 in case of v6
>>> only connectivity?
>>>
>>> I can see that this would work, but is that a generally accepted
>>> solution? On Android, this would mean that dnsmasq would need to gain
>>> DNS64 functionality (and also needs to be able to detect the NAT64
>>> prefix somehow).
>>  
>> That is one of the models discussed in BEHAVE, of course, and it deals
>> neatly with the DNSSEC conundrum for DNS64. But the normal model is
>> the one that Curtis doesn't like. NAT64/DNS64 plays better when
>> the client network is truly IPv6-only; with mixed hosts, you really need
>> to provision dual stack hosts with a normal DNS server, and the IPv6-only
>> hosts with a DNS64.
>>  
>>     Brian
> 
> 
> Brian,
> 
> What you suggest might be accomplished by having DHCP4 return a
> different nameserver than DHCP6.  At the very least the same
> nameserver (same copy of bind or whatever on a DS machine) could
> respond differently if the private side query arrives via IPv4 than if
> it arrives via IPv6.  Worst case is DS machines make use of NAT64 when
> they could have used IPv4.

Right, but that is something that people in BEHAVE thought was the worst
thing since unsliced bread.

   Brian

> 
> [aside: Bind has views, but I don't know if the view support would
> allow this.  It seems like it would.  It would be nice if this were
> doable today with no changes.  ie: existance proof]
> 
> Curtis
> 
_______________________________________________
homenet mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/homenet

Reply via email to