Re: [v6ops] IPv6-Only Preferred DHCPv4 option

[Philip Homburg <[e-mail]>]

>I'm an operator who could not wait to implement that draft (and I'm
>aware of at least one other operator who might be interested).
>Maybe I'm not creative enough but all other options of incremental
>deployment of IPv6-only I've come up with are much more ugly
>(doubling the number of SSIDs/VLANs or having a portal when users have to
>request IPv4 so their MACs are whitelisted etc).

Can you describe why offering both NAT64 and native IPv4 on the same lan
doesn't work?

Note that I don't have a strong opinion on what would be enough demand from
operators. It seems to me that running both dual stack and NAT64 on the same
network is bad from an operational point of view. But if people want to do
it anyway, then it is fine with me.

One thing that worries me a bit is that with this option the host signals that
it doesn't need an IPv4 address if there is NAT64.

There are two things that can go wrong: the network provides the NAT64 
transation prefix in a way that the host doesn't understand. 

The second thing, what if some other IPv4aaS technology becomes popular,
do we need a new option for every IPv4aaS technology?