Re: [v6ops] Are we competitive?

["Soni \"They/Them\" L." <[e-mail]>]

On 2022-08-09 18:16, Clark Gaylord wrote:
>
> That there are commercial NAT66 offerings is less compelling. Vendors
> frequently want you to do bad things. NAT66 suffers from the same
> problem as NAT44 -- there is no exit strategy. NAT64 is specifically a
> *transition* technology and over time there is less and less NAT.
>

how do you make it so e.g. TAYGA uses the same client IP(v4) for all
CLATs without NAT66, i.e. without mapping IPv6 addresses to a single
canonical, internal IPv6 address (maybe [::1]) for TAYGA to use?

since TAYGA is stateless, it wants to map single IPv6 to single IPv4.
"true" NAT64 using the DS-Lite range requires the use of NAT66 + TAYGA,
otherwise you have to use 1918 (or, alternatively, CGNAT addresses) +
NAT44 + TAYGA.

(still trying to see if this works, haven't had the time to play with
it... still annoyed at the lack of out-of-box linux distro 464XLAT
support also.)