[183290] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Production-scale NAT64
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ca By)
Wed Aug 26 10:28:12 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <55DDCB02.8070904@seacom.mu>
Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2015 07:28:08 -0700
From: Ca By <cb.list6@gmail.com>
To: Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu> wrote:
>
>
> On 26/Aug/15 16:13, Izaac wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm curious about this too. I'd like a solid list of providers to
> > avoid.
>
> NAT64 is opt-in.
>
> It will mostly be used for customers that can no longer obtain IPv4
> addresses.
>
> Service providers do not like NAT64 anymore than you do, but there needs
> to be some way to bridge both protocols in the interim.
>
> What you should be more interested in is which service providers have
> deployed it at scale where it is not causing problems, as those are the
> ones you want to be connected to when the IPv4-hell hiteth the faneth!
>
> Mark.
>
From largish deployment ...
Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic
require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6
(thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and so on ...).
