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

[Mark Andrews <[e-mail]>]

In message <[e-mail]>
, Lorenzo Colitti writes:
> On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 8:37 AM, Ca By <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> > And, i will reinterate an important point Nick made. The majority of
> > traffic goes e2e ipv6. A minority of traffic requires NAT64/DNS64. And a
> > sliver of traffic requires 464XLAT or 4464.  Those numbers are all growing
> > in the right direction, more e2e v6.
> >
> 
> What he said. For many operators, the choice was between a) 60% (and
> growing) native IPv6 traffic, 30% NAT64 traffic, and 5% NAT464 traffic, and
> b) 100% NAT44 traffic.

Garbage.  At worst it would have been growing IPv6 traffic + dropping
NAT44 traffic.  THE OPERATORS ONLY HAD TO TURN ON DUAL STACK.

Dual stack was being delivered by some operators before DNS64 and
NAT64 even existed.

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: [phone]                 INTERNET: [e-mail]