Re: RFC3484-revise and NAT64 Well-Known Prefix

[Teemu Kiviniemi <[e-mail]>]

On Sun, 27 Mar 2011, [e-mail] wrote:

> I discussed shortly with Arifumi about RFC3484 default policy table 
> updates and NAT64 WKP, i.e. whether the default policy table should take 
> a stand on 64:ff9b::/96 preference.
>
> It seemed to us that default policy table does not necessarily have to, 
> as it could be ok to handle addresses with WKP similarly to global IPv6 
> addresses. Furthermore, the default policy table anyway cannot cover 
> Network-Specific Prefixes.
>
> Hence prefixes used for protocol translation would be handled like 
> global IPv6 addresses unless something different is configured via 
> policy distribution mechanism? And this should perhaps be documented 
> into the RFC3484-revised.

I believe native IPv4 should always be preferred over NAT64. Even if 
native IPv4 was using NAT, it is likely to work better with current 
applications than NAT64.

Preferring IPv4 over the NAT64 well-known prefix does not fix the problem 
for network-specific NAT64 prefixes. However, I see no reasons why the 
NAT64 WKP should not be given a lower preference than IPv4 by default.

-- 
Teemu