Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt

2013/11/5, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) <evyncke@cisco.com>:
> OK, understood, thanks :-) Your (and Victor's one) should be added to the
> document to make it clearer IMHO

Yes. In the draft, we have following description:

   The
   coexistence has already appeared in mobile networks, in which dual
   stack mobile phones normally initiate some dual-stack PDN/PDP
   Type[RFC6459] to query both IPv4/IPv6 address and IPv4 allocated
   addresses are very often private ones.

-Gang

>
> -éric
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mikael Abrahamsson [mailto:swmike@swm.pp.se]
>> Sent: lundi 4 novembre 2013 18:31
>> To: Eric Vyncke (evyncke)
>> Cc: v6ops@ietf.org
>> Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
>>
>> On Tue, 5 Nov 2013, Eric Vyncke (evyncke) wrote:
>>
>> > I have hard time to understand the case described in section 3.1.4
>> > "co-existence of NAT44 and NAT64". Why would a provider use both at
>> > the same time? Using NAT44 + native IPv6 is sensible, using IPv6-only
>> > +
>> > NAT64 is also valuable but I cannot imagine why NAT44 and NAT64 could
>> > be use together for the same subscribers.
>>
>> Mobile.
>>
>> It's up to the terminal to initiate a connection in the APN, and you
>> don't
>> know if it'll be IPv4 only, IPv6 only or dual stack.
>>
>> --
>> Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se
> _______________________________________________
> v6ops mailing list
> v6ops@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops
>