[141623] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Daniel Roesen)
Thu Jun 9 15:26:10 2011
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:23:33 +0200
From: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Mail-Followup-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <BANLkTimKBa5hY3sAMTzB6W51mGhGXqMoFw@mail.gmail.com>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.
We still need to find some solution to that problem.
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
