Hi, this issue was also discussed here in 6man. Please refer to the following thread. http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ipv6/current/msg13709.html
The result of the discussion was described in the past version of the RFC 6724. But, it looks it was removed when it was re-structured. Thanks. 2013/1/26 Dan Wing <[email protected]> > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of > > Simon Perreault > > Sent: Thursday, January 24, 2013 1:50 AM > > To: [email protected] > > Subject: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering > > well-known NAT64 prefix > > > > Le 2013-01-23 22:05, Philipp Kern a écrit : > > > 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. > > > > This has been discussed in BEHAVE numerous times. The current consensus > > is: no, NAT64 is not "worse" than IPv4. > > > > From the host's point of view, you don't know that IPv4 is not NATed as > > well. You don't even know if it is "native": it could be provided by DS- > > Lite for all you know. > > > > From the operator's point of view, if you deploy a NAT64 in a dual- > > stack network, that probably means you *want* traffic to go over > > NAT64 rather than over IPv4. You probably want *less* native IPv4 > > traffic in your network so that eventually you can make your network > > fully IPv6-only. > > And also, if the host only has special handling for the well-known > NAT64 prefix (64:ff9b::/96), that means networks that need to or decide > to deploy their own, site-specific NAT64 prefix will not benefit from > that special handling. BEHAVE didn't want the well-known prefix to work > differently than a site-specific NAT64 prefix. > > -d > > > > Simon > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > > [email protected] > > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > [email protected] > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- >
-------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list [email protected] Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
