On 14 January 2012 15:25, Brandon Butterworth <[email protected]> wrote: >> I've been thinking about this for a while, and mangling DNS seems like >> a real dirty way of doing this. > > Why mangle it, a v6 only client could have a PAC file rule to set a > proxy for anything that returns a v4 address, v6 destinations go direct.
Firstly, I believe PAC files are for HTTP proxies, not SOCKS proxies. If I'm wrong, then that's one additional thing that makes life a lot easier. Secondly, the mangling of DNS64/NAT64 just seems "wrong" to me, and doesn't keep to the "KISS" principle. > Not sure about that, we've been running socks since 1993 I'm afraid my SOCKS experience is severely lacking - I've done transparent squid proxying, and I've done the old "ssh -D 3333" trick, but that's the limit of my proxy experience; that is to say, only scratching the surface! Matthew Walster
