|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |
Date: Tue, 01 Mar 2011 05:45:26 +0900 From: Randy Bush <randy@psg.com> To: George Bonser <gbonser@seven.com> In-Reply-To: <5A6D953473350C4B9995546AFE9939EE0BC13DF9@RWC-EX1.corp.seven.com> Cc: NANOG Operators' Group <nanog@nanog.org> Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org > Dual stack isn't always the best approach. For networks that pass a > large amount of traffic to a relatively small number of destinations, > NAT64/DNS64 on a native v6 platform might be a better migration > approach. If 90% of your traffic is v6, it is probably less trouble to > use NAT64/DNS64 to reach that 10% than it is to dual-stack. the scenario i think of here is the enterprise which wishes not to use private space so deploys v6-only internally, and nat64 at the border to a dual-stack provider. randy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| home | help | back | first | fref | pref | prev | next | nref | lref | last | post |