On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Jeff Hartley wrote:
We've been using two workarounds:
1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND 9.8; one DNS64 and the other
DNS6). Have the client provisioning system assign the appropriate DNS
server IPs (dual-stack to anycast set 1, v6-only to anycast
On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 09:29:47AM +1000, Mark Andrews wrote:
DS-lite and NAT444 don't break existing applications.
They do, to different degrees. There is plenty of evidence for that.
Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Pick your poison. :-)
Best regards,
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think
that NAT64
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and they
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN)
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 10:39 AM, Cameron Byrne cb.li...@gmail.com wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.
We still need to find some solution to that problem.
We've been using two workarounds:
1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND
In message banlktimkba5hy3samtzb6w51mghgxqm...@mail.gmail.com, Cameron Byrne
writes:
--000e0ce0b4eaf1531104a5486aed
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
On Jun 9, 2011 1:32 AM, Mark Andrews ma...@isc.org wrote:
In message 4df053aa.50...@axu.tm, Aleksi Suhonen writes:
Hello,
Hello,
Some people were talking about Large Scale NATs (LSN) or Carrier Grade
NATs (CGN) yesterday. Comments included that DS-Lite and NAT64 are
basically LSNs and they suffer from all the same problems. I don't think
that NAT64 is as bad as other LSNs and here's why:
NAT64 scales much
10 matches
Mail list logo