In your letter dated Thu, 06 Oct 2016 23:28:32 +0000 you wrote: > Nastygram. So make the default IETF SSIDs IPv6-only or (+NAT64) > if you want. Then have the ietf-legacy network, which would give > you IPv4 and a portal page penalty that you have to state the nature > why you have to use this network and cant live on the default one. > Id be so curious to see what happens when people finally have to > start thinking about it.. and open internal tickets .. It was > great fun doing it 6-ish years ago, ..
Personally, I consider offering NAT64 over wifi quite absurd. The obvious way to provide access to legacy IPv4 is some form of NAT4. How it is transported over the rest of the network is upto the network operator. But the obvious interface is RFC 894. So on networks that promote NAT64 (FOSDEM has this setup for quite a number of years now) I just connect to the legacy network. Their legacy network has perfectly fine IPv6, so I consider it way better than the NAT64 that 'everybody' likes to push. For the specific mobile weirdness, NAT64 make sense. But everywhere else, requiring every device to have 464xlat to deal with IPv4 literals is just bad engineering. If your backbone is IPv6-only, then the obvious solution is to deal with this in CPEs, wifi access points, etc. Not to require all hosts to know the details of your network. _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list sunset4@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
