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

Gert Doering <gert@space.net> Fri, 08 November 2013 17:27 UTC

Return-Path: <gert@space.net>
X-Original-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E8CE11E80EC for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:27:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.469
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.469 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.130, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([12.22.58.30]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id o6G-qUyMwjQf for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:27:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (mobil.space.net [IPv6:2001:608:2:81::67]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7820D21F9E7C for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 09:27:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mobil.space.net (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 623D360A0E for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:27:30 +0100 (CET)
X-SpaceNet-Relay: true
Received: from moebius3.space.net (moebius3.Space.Net [IPv6:2001:608:2:2::250]) by mobil.space.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 37814608F4 for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:27:30 +0100 (CET)
Received: (qmail 60846 invoked by uid 1007); 8 Nov 2013 18:27:30 +0100
Date: Fri, 8 Nov 2013 18:27:30 +0100
From: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
To: "Heatley, Nick" <nick.heatley@ee.co.uk>
Message-ID: <20131108172730.GM81676@Space.Net>
References: <20131013235941.31896.30276.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com> <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1237E18A6@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311050329470.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se> <97EB7536A2B2C549846804BBF3FD47E1237E1941@xmb-aln-x02.cisco.com> <CAM+vMES=xhq7VF8SvqEZEz3ZCRN8p1zWiabkNnU6ucKVya6KQQ@mail.gmail.com> <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303A137B3@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <6536E263028723489CCD5B6821D4B21303A137B3@UK30S005EXS06.EEAD.EEINT.CO.UK>
X-NCC-RegID: de.space
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: "v6ops@ietf.org" <v6ops@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: [v6ops] I-D Action: draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-experience-04.txt
X-BeenThere: v6ops@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: v6ops discussion list <v6ops.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/v6ops>
List-Post: <mailto:v6ops@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v6ops>, <mailto:v6ops-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 08 Nov 2013 17:27:38 -0000

Hi,

On Fri, Nov 08, 2013 at 05:10:39PM +0000, Heatley, Nick wrote:
> If the scope of DNS64 effectively pushes all dual stack clients to favour NAT64, why not?

If you have NAT44 and native IPv6, I can't see why you would want to add 
DNS64+NAT64 to the mix.

NAT64 is good when you do *not* want IPv4 at the customer edge.

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

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279