Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Brian E Carpenter <[e-mail]>]

On 21/11/2017 02:36, Ole Troan wrote:
...>> [Med] These are generic statements, Ole. We are talking about the IETF case.
>> * The IETF has no control on the hosts that connect to the IETF network,
>> * IETF attendees who are using corporate devices, have no control on these hosts
>>
>> So, how forcing devices to use "IPv6+nat64" will help here?
> 
> Eat own dogfood. Many IETF people are developers or work for companies having applications not working.
> As I said there were a minimum of applications that didn't work. Corporate VPNs largely did. Jen has the final numbers.

However, as long as even one application, such as one VPN, or one
literal IPv4 address, fails, that represents millions of failure cases
if we consider the whole world (e.g. imagine every hotel network in
the world running IPv6+NAT64 only). That simply isn't viable. Dual
stack in every hotel room in the world is viable, from the hotel guests'
point of view. Operators might not like it, but users wouldn't care.

    Brian