On 18 May 2015, at 1:27, Gert Doering wrote:
Hi,
On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:49:29PM +0000, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
Yes, of course you are right that this is a complex issue, but
there's a
widespread tendency to carry the old limitations of today's IPv4 to
IPv6
even if there's no real need to do so. And Marc calling NAT64 a
working
solution despite the fact that it breaks IPv6 the same way NAT broke
IPv4 really asks to be balanced by a similarly oversimplified
statement
going the other way:-)
Actually, the whole point is that NAT64 does not touch IPv6, so it is
not "breaking IPv6" - it ensures that IPv4 legacy is still reachable,
even if you're inside an IPv6-only network.
Which sounds quite positive to me, given the alternative is "run
dual-stack
everywhere, forever, because someone out there might still be
IPv4-only"...
Right. NAT64-DNS64, while not perfect, is to me the only viable solution
to move from where we are now to IPv6 in a cost effective manner.
Running dual-stack is not cost-effective, while ipv6-only could be.
When we first talked about NAT64 a while ago, I hated it. But I became
fast convinced that it is a very important tool to move to IPv6.
Marc.
Carriers can't "just turn off IPv4" if users still connect to
IPv4-only
sites... so what is worse, NAT44/CGN and dual-stack all the way to
the
client, or nice and shiny IPv6-only at the edges, and NAT64 for
talking
to the old Internet?
Gert Doering
-- NetMaster
--
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A.
Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
