On 4/Jul/16 11:04, Tore Anderson wrote:
> My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked > façade. That can easily be achieved using, e.g., protocol translation > at the outer border of my network. > > The inside of my network, where 99.99% of all the complexity, devices, > applications and so on reside, can be single stack IPv6-only today. > > Thus I get all the benefits of running a single stack network, minus a > some fraction of a percent needed to operate the translation system. > (I could in theory get rid of that too by outsourcing it somewhere.) The NAT64 translation still requires a dual-stack deployment. Of course, it is a smaller % of your overall single-stack IPv6 network, but still there nonetheless. The advantage with NAT64, as you say, is that it easier to rip it out when the IPv4 Internet dies a happy death, than it would be if one were keeping IPv4 primary and sticking IPv6 duct tape on top. Mark.
