[ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar

Hi,

On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:49:29PM +0000, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote:
> Yes, of course you are right that this is a complex issue, but there's a
> widespread tendency to carry the old limitations of today's IPv4 to IPv6
> even if there's no real need to do so.  And Marc calling NAT64 a working
> solution despite the fact that it breaks IPv6 the same way NAT broke
> IPv4 really asks to be balanced by a similarly oversimplified statement
> going the other way:-)

Actually, the whole point is that NAT64 does not touch IPv6, so it is
not "breaking IPv6" - it ensures that IPv4 legacy is still reachable, 
even if you're inside an IPv6-only network.  

Which sounds quite positive to me, given the alternative is "run dual-stack 
everywhere, forever, because someone out there might still be IPv4-only"...

Carriers can't "just turn off IPv4" if users still connect to IPv4-only
sites...  so what is worse, NAT44/CGN and dual-stack all the way to the
client, or nice and shiny IPv6-only at the edges, and NAT64 for talking
to the old Internet?

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 811 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.ripe.net/ripe/mail/archives/ipv6-wg/attachments/20150517/ce0abfa5/attachment.sig>