Cameron, On 2011/07/28, at 17:42, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> The translation mode looks like NAT464, and i like it NAT464 + DNS64 > since it solves a real problem, as noted here > http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/behave/current/msg09480.html > I don't understand why is DNS64 needed with NAT464. Could you elaborate it? > Is the reference to RFC6053 right? > > "The operation of the 4V6 CE and > gateway are very similar, if not identical, to that of stateless > NAT64 as specified in RFC 6053." > > So is this right? I think that it should be RFC6052. > Right now, i feel like it would be easier for the IETF to just define > NAT464 in general and stateless translation 4V6 is a flavor of NAT464. > > I understand the allure of stateless. But, IMHO the address > multiplexing of stateful is very useful and many large SPs already run > this way, and that operational experience is very important. The IPv6 > transition space is becoming very crowded, i personally would like to > see more work to make IPv6 a true replacement for IPv4 instead of yet > another transition mechanism that meets some set for checkboxs. Stateless is not exclusive with stateful one, and also NAT64. I agree with Hui. cheers, --satoru _______________________________________________ Softwires mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/softwires
