Hi, was it a deliberate ommission that RFC6724 does not mention a precedence value for the well-known NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96?
If a host has both IPv4 and IPv6 configured it should probably use the native IPv4 connectivity to connect to the target instead of the translated IPv6-to-IPv4 access. Especially if the DNS64 server is adding AAAA records unconditionally because it cannot know if the client is actually dual stack. Neither should the client be forced to resort to IPv4 for DNS resolution to make this clear. RFC6146 specifying both NAT64 and its well-known prefix is also on the Standards Track, so it seems fair that it should be incorporated into a RFC6724bis, I think. Kind regards Philipp Kern
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
