Re: draft-chen-v6ops-nat64-experience-02

[Cameron Byrne <[e-mail]>]

On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <[e-mail]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Michael Richardson
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> "Aleksi" == Aleksi Suhonen <[e-mail]> writes:
>>     Aleksi> Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our
>>     Aleksi> NAT64 were registered to this one device.
>>
>> Do I understand that you attempt to provide a single IPv4 address 1:1
>> with a an internal IPv6 address? (NAT vs NAPT)
>
> It seems like this is what is called stateless NAT64.
> I am not sure if there is any document specifying stateless NAT64?
>
> Regards,
>
> Behcet

Stateless = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145

Stateful = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146

If the goal is providing a dynamic access from an IPv6-only network
toward IPv4-only internet, RFC 6146 is the optimal choice.

RFC 6145 has limited use for the cases for IPv6 - > IPv4 since it is
1:1 mapping.  Most people do IPv6 because IPv4 is limited, so ...
doing 1:1 mapping does not really buy you anything.  You can just use
IPv4 and achieve the same scale.

The best use case i have seen for RFC 6145 is for the data center
environment http://fud.no/talks/20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_IPv6_Only_Data_Centres.pdf
 as well as the mapping of the entire IPv4 internet into IPv6 as is
the case of 464XLAT CLAT in the IPv4->IPv6  scenario.

CB