[99594] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Access to the IPv4 net for IPv6-only systems, was: Re: WG Action: Conclusion of IP Version 6 (ipv6)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Fri Sep 28 17:40:10 2007
In-Reply-To: <C322E2EE.33E1%alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
Cc: Jari Arkko <jari.arkko@piuha.net>, Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>,
<nanog@nanog.org>
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Sun, 21 Oct 2007 23:13:33 +0200
To: Alain Durand <alain_durand@cable.comcast.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 28-sep-2007, at 22:57, Alain Durand wrote:
> Tunneling is great, but it requires to allocate an IPv4 address...
> that I
> may not have in the first place.
If an IPv6-only box is going to talk to the IPv4 world, at some
point, the traffic needs to hit a dual stack system that can do the
IPv6/IPv4 translation.
I think an approach where you have a regular IPv4 NAT and then tunnel
the RFC 1918 addresses over an IPv6-only network would work better
than NAT-PT.
If the tunnel provisioning system is flexible enough, it could even
give unNATed IPv4 addresses to (just) the hosts that need them,
possibly only temporarily.
