[111984] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 Confusion
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Brandon Galbraith)
Tue Feb 17 22:14:05 2009
In-Reply-To: <65EE9B0D-70C3-4953-A17B-1D2F3F0DEE7F@daork.net>
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2009 21:13:59 -0600
From: Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith@gmail.com>
To: Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net>, nanog list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
So we deploy v6 addresses to clients, and save the remaining v4
addresses for servers. Problem solved?
-brandon
On 2/17/09, Nathan Ward <nanog@daork.net> wrote:
> On 18/02/2009, at 3:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
>>> I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated
>>
>> the ietf has recanted and is hurriedly trying to get this back on
>> track. of course, to save face, the name has to be changed.
>
> Sort of - except it is only for IPv6 "clients" to connect to named
> IPv4 "servers". NAT-PT allowed for the opposite direction, IPv4
> "clients" connecting to IPv6 "servers" - NAT64 does not.
>
> The server must have an A record in DNS, and the client must use that
> name to connect to - just like NAT-PT.
>
> --
> Nathan Ward
>
>
>
--
Sent from my mobile device
Brandon Galbraith
Voice: 630.400.6992
Email: brandon.galbraith@gmail.com
