[183314] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Production-scale NAT64
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mark Andrews)
Thu Aug 27 01:19:10 2015
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
To: Tore Anderson <tore@fud.no>
From: Mark Andrews <marka@isc.org>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 27 Aug 2015 06:53:46 +0200."
<20150827065346.58554fa7@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Aug 2015 15:16:57 +1000
Cc: "nanog@nanog.org" <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
In message <20150827065346.58554fa7@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>, Tore Anderson
writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
> * Mark Tinka <mark.tinka@seacom.mu>
>
> > In our deployment, we do not offer customers private IPv4 addresses. I
> > suppose we can afford to do this because a) we still have lots of
> > public IPv4, b) we are not a mobile carrier. So any of our customers
> > with IPv4 will never hit the NAT64 gateway.
> >
> > When we do run out of public IPv4 addresses (and cannot get anymore
> > from AFRINIC), all new customers will be assigned IPv6 addresses.
>
> Why wait until then?
>
> Any particular reason why you cannot already today provide IPv6
> addresses to your [new] customers in parallel with IPv4?
>
> Tore
Or why you are looking at NAT64 instead of DS-Lite, MAP-E, or MAP-T
all of which are better solutions than NAT64. NAT64 + DNS64 which
breaks DNSSEC.
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka@isc.org
