Re: [v6ops] 464xlat case study (was reclassify 464XLAT as standard instead of info)

[james woodyatt <[e-mail]>]

On Sep 25, 2017, at 04:56, Heatley,N,Nick,TQB R <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> So this is my opinion: 464xlat is the currently the adopted approach when:
> - IPv4 addresses are (near) exhausted for the mass-market, 
> - AND the provider network demands a translation technology (i.e. incompatible with encaps.)
> - AND at the client end,  apps are not purged of IPv4 literals OR tethering to an unknown OS is required


For the first two bullet items and the second half of the third bullet item, you only need NAT64+DNS64, not the whole of 464XLAT.

You only put the CLAT on the handset for one thing, and one thing only: dealing with applications that still use IPv4 literals, and it’s not the only way to skin that cat, c.f. the approach used by Apple, which uses a bump-in-the-stack at a higher layer of the operating system instead of using the CLAT according to 464XLAT. It works fine in all the cases anyone really cares about, and when the apps that still use IPv4 literals are all retired from service, it won’ t be necessary ever again.

--james woodyatt <[e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>>