At Sat, 23 Aug 2014 09:48:42 +0200, Tore Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> > I assumed that stateless translation always uses the well-known > > prefix. Maybe I was incorrect about that? > > Yes, that is incorrect. Per RFC 6052 the operator can use either the > Well-Known Prefix and a Network-Specific Prefix. There are quite few > reasons why one would choose the latter; for example it allows for the > translating device to be reached across the public internet. Another > reason is that only a single WKP exists, so if the operator wants to > deploy both SIIT and NAT64, and/or multiple instances of either > technology, all of his deployments (except for one), must necessarily > use an NSP. Okay, thanks for the correction. In that case this approach cannot be a complete alternative to dropping PTB<1280 unconditionally without affecting possible existing/coming deployments. -- JINMEI, Tatuya _______________________________________________ OPSEC mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/opsec
