-----Original Message----- From: Khaled Omar Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:51 PM To: 'Alexandre Petrescu' Subject: RE: [Int-area] Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D.
Alex, > Why NAT64 requires translation? How a destination IPv4 will understand an IPv6 packet without translation by statically configured binding!! Khaled -----Original Message----- From: Alexandre Petrescu [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 8:44 PM To: Khaled Omar Cc: int-area Subject: Re: [Int-area] Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D. Khaled, Le 30/09/2017 à 13:36, Khaled Omar a écrit : > Hi Alex, > >> NAT64 (RFC6146) already allows "IPv6 only hosts to communicate to >> IPv4 only hosts and vice versa”. > > As mentioned on the draft, NAT64 requires so much translations Why NAT64 requires translation? > binding in addition to getting the DNS64 involved in the communication > process that’s why NAT64 is not widespread. NAT64 is not very widespread, but there is running code for it. Running code is a really great thing. Alex > > Khaled > > -----Original Message----- From: Int-area > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Alexandre Petrescu > Sent: Saturday, September 30, 2017 10:08 AM To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Int-area] Request for a mailing list to IPmix I-D. > > > > Le 29/09/2017 à 18:47, Suresh Krishnan a écrit : >> Hi Khaled, >> >>> On Sep 29, 2017, at 12:31 PM, Khaled Omar >>> <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Hi Suresh, The problem I’m trying to solve is to overcome the >>> depletion of IPv4 address space and the lack of implementing IPv6 , >>> this will cause the IPv6 only hosts not to be able to access the >>> whole internet as there will be IPv6 only hosts (18% of the Internet >>> traffic) against the domination of IPv4 only hosts (82% of the >>> Internet traffic), >> >> The part that is not clear is why you believe IPv10 will be any more >> successful or quicker to widespread deployment than IPv6. Can you >> share your thoughts? >> >>> IPmix allows IPv6 only hosts to communicate to IPv4 only hosts and >>> vice versa, and this will allow the coexistence of both version >>> without any separation or division on the Internet >> >> NAT64 (RFC6146) already allows "IPv6 only hosts to communicate to >> IPv4 only hosts and vice versa”. > > I think I agree. > > NAT64 may have some advantages, have a user base, but it may also have > some drawbacks. > > The same about DNS64 RFC6147. > > If I remember correctly, NAT64, and/or DNS64, maye have been worked in > the v6ops WG? > > Was it considered to bring this work to v6ops? > > Alex > >> >> Regards Suresh >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list >> [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area >> > > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list > [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area > _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
