Re: IPv6 only host NAT64 requirements?

[Ole Troan <[e-mail]>]

James,

>> 
>>>> IMHO the optimal solution is:
>>>> - the network SHOULD provide a host with NAT64 prefix information in RA;
>>> 
>>> Disagree. If the network has NAT64, then it should deploy RFC 7225. Ye gods, this is the very last thing that should be jammed into RA messages.
>> 
>> Do we really want PCP in IPv6?
> 
> If we have any kind of NAT, then we need PCP. Using NAT without PCP considered harmful. That goes for NAT64 and NAT66.

It's not for the lack of trying that IPv6 isn't adopted everywhere.
As IPv4 address sharing ratio's increase, say good bye to endpoint independent NATs, IP fragmentation...

But now I have to first implement a PCP client, discover the PCP server address, and then finally get the NAT64 prefix. ;-)

>> Is PCP successful in IPv4?
> 
> Well, there was this: <https://www.ietf.org/proceedings/88/slides/slides-88-pcp-5.pdf>
> 
>> Or does it even work well with A+P based solutions?
> 
> Designed expressly for it.

Ah, yes so it does.
Doesn't work well with address and port dependent filtering though.

Cheers,
Ole