IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se> Sat, 09 November 2013 08:28 UTC

Return-Path: <swmike@swm.pp.se>
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 D7C4521F9E3F for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:28:25 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -5.923
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-5.923 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.326, BAYES_00=-2.599, HELO_EQ_SE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 13QeXe-APeew for <v6ops@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from uplift.swm.pp.se (swm.pp.se [212.247.200.143]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 85FB321F9E3A for <v6ops@ietf.org>; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 00:28:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix, from userid 501) id 371C99C; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:27:32 +0100 (CET)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by uplift.swm.pp.se (Postfix) with ESMTP id 281509A; Sat, 9 Nov 2013 09:27:32 +0100 (CET)
Date: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 09:27:32 +0100
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike@swm.pp.se>
To: Gert Doering <gert@space.net>
In-Reply-To: <20131108172730.GM81676@Space.Net>
Message-ID: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1311090926500.26054@uplift.swm.pp.se>
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> <20131108172730.GM81676@Space.Net>
User-Agent: Alpine 2.02 (DEB 1266 2009-07-14)
Organization: People's Front Against WWW
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset="US-ASCII"; format="flowed"
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: Sat, 09 Nov 2013 08:28:26 -0000

On Fri, 8 Nov 2013, Gert Doering wrote:

> 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.

Mobile. You don't know if the client is v4 only, v6 only, or dual stack. 
This is up to the client.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike@swm.pp.se

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email