Re: [v6ops] IPREF as a transitioning tool

[Gert Doering <[e-mail]>]

Hi,

On Sun, Nov 12, 2023 at 08:07:12AM -0300, Soni "They/Them" L. wrote:
> > For server setups, SIIT-DC seems to work well (and server applications
> > are usually better controlled and can be taught to use v6 sockets).
> > 
> > What scenarios do you have in mind where a 464xlat on the server itself
> > would be beneficial, as compared to a v6-only datacenter with SIIT-DC in
> > front?
> 
> SIIT-DC appears to use the same packet translation building blocks as
> 464XLAT/NAT64...? (From skimming, it looks like the same thing, just with
> different names for the various components! And the addition of a "reverse"
> mode of operation, where it accepts connections from v4 hosts.)

Yes.  Basically, IPv6 only (as in a mobile network) but with IPv4->IPv6
translation at the edge, so IPv4 clients can reach IPv6-only servers
(= "publically visible services" appear dual-stacked, with v4 going
through the translator)

> So what makes 464XLAT (on *top* of SIIT-DC, as opposed to replacing it)
> better is the ability to let the server know about it. As well as being able
> to standardize on a protocol already supported by (some) operating systems
> (systemd is slowly working on adding a CLAT, and FreeBSD allegedly already
> has one).

Not sure why this is a benefit for the server.  Assuming a v6-only world,
and not having to care any bit about v4 or translation technologies sounds
like a great benefit.

So, asking again - why do you think it would be beneficial if the server
had to care?

(On a *Client*, which is where systemd seems to be evolving Linux to,
local 464xlat brings obvious benefits to v4-only applications)

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                      Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard, Michael Emmer
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14        Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                 HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: [phone]         USt-IdNr.: DE813185279