[ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 only as default for next meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
🔓Dan Wing
dwing at cisco.com
Mon May 18 18:57:08 CEST 2015
On 17-May-2015 09:52 am, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote: > > Hi Dan and list, > > 🔓Dan Wing <dwing at cisco.com> writes: > >> On 15-May-2015 02:25 am, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote: >>> [Implications of NAT64] >> >> To avoid some of that, they can go IPv6-only, including their servers >> and all peers they communicate with, then there doesn't need to be >> NAT64 for their traffic. But even IPv6-only they will need firewall >> traversal support, as firewalls by default will block unsolicited >> incoming traffic (RFC6092). > > I'm not sure if I get you correctly, but: Do you mean IPv6 only, or > dual-stacked servers (so whatever a client connects with works without > translation)? Go IPv6-only. If servers run IPv4 there will be a NAT on path, necessitating the NAT traversal support in the client. But IPv6-only reduces the market to only those homes/businesses with IPv6. Short version of what I'm saying: there is no way to avoid NAT translation support in the client. -d
- Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar
- Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] IPv6 only as default for next meeting
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
[ ipv6-wg Archives ]