This is good point. But maybe this should be discussed in Softwires list. Regards,
Behcet > On 28 apr 2011, at 14:11, buptnoc wrote: > > > As described in draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-framework-10#section-2.4 ， we >need nat46 translator. > > > But, do we really need this scenario？Is it worth to deploy this >scenario? > > > In fact, this scenario appears when we have v4-only client and v6-only >servers > > My opinion is: no, this is not worth the trouble. We know that NAT46 is a > hard >problem, and it's unlikely a solution would be very robust. Because of lack >of >IPv4 addresses, a relatively small pool of v4 addresses would have to map to >all possible v6 addresses, which means that the mappings have to be highly >dynamic. But addresses are cached in many places, including often for a long >time in applications. Having different applications react differently to >NAT46 >would be a big deployment problem. > > I would recommend (apart from upgrading to IPv6) deploying HTTP and HTTPS >proxies, as those will allow HTTP and HTTPS from IPv4-only clients to >IPv6-only >servers (or the other way around!) and in principle, it's possible to modify >any TCP-based application to work through an HTTPS proxy, as those are >basically TCP relays. > > It should be possible to make an automatic proxy configuration so that a >browser only uses the proxy to reach IPv6 destinations and connects to IPv4 >destinations directly. However, I haven't tried this myself yet. > > > _______________________________________________ > Behave mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/behave > _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
