Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

Cameron,

> 
> Yes, the first 2 are not objectionable and are already well know, documented and deployed as part of various transition solutions.
> 
> My feeling is the plane is already in flight and operators do not need any additional guidance / confusion from the ietf.
> 
> In short, this is a solved problem and the industry needs more stability and less tweaking .... especially in something fundamental like the node definition

This isn't guidance to operators, this is guidance to implementors.
As we found during the hackathon, multiple stacks do lack the first two. And as a consequence applications break.
Now you can argue if we want to put the burden of this on applications or on the host stack. If the former the node requirements document might not be the right place.

> 
> http://www.worldipv6launch.org/apps/ipv6week/measurement/images/graphs/T-MobileUSA.png

I thought this deployment provided dual stack service? 464XLAT, no?
That's a different problem than what we are trying to solve here.

Cheers,
Ole