On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 12:38 PM, Cameron Byrne <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[email protected]> > wrote: >> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Michael Richardson >> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>>>>>> "Aleksi" == Aleksi Suhonen <[email protected]> writes: >>> Aleksi> Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our >>> Aleksi> NAT64 were registered to this one device. >>> >>> Do I understand that you attempt to provide a single IPv4 address 1:1 >>> with a an internal IPv6 address? (NAT vs NAPT) >> >> It seems like this is what is called stateless NAT64. >> I am not sure if there is any document specifying stateless NAT64? >> >> Regards, >> >> Behcet > > Stateless = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145
Are you sure? Here is a quote from 6146: Stateful NAT64 is a mechanism for translating IPv6 packets to IPv4 packets and vice versa. The translation is done by translating the packet headers according to the IP/ICMP Translation Algorithm defined in [RFC6145]. Regards, Behcet > > Stateful = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146 > > If the goal is providing a dynamic access from an IPv6-only network > toward IPv4-only internet, RFC 6146 is the optimal choice. > > RFC 6145 has limited use for the cases for IPv6 - > IPv4 since it is > 1:1 mapping. Most people do IPv6 because IPv4 is limited, so ... > doing 1:1 mapping does not really buy you anything. You can just use > IPv4 and achieve the same scale. > > The best use case i have seen for RFC 6145 is for the data center > environment > http://fud.no/talks/20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_IPv6_Only_Data_Centres.pdf > as well as the mapping of the entire IPv4 internet into IPv6 as is > the case of 464XLAT CLAT in the IPv4->IPv6 scenario. > > CB -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
