Re: IPv6 Confusion

[Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net>]

On 18/02/2009, at 3:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

> > I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated
>
> the ietf has recanted and is hurriedly trying to get this back on
> track.  of course, to save face, the name has to be changed.

Sort of - except it is only for IPv6 "clients" to connect to named  
IPv4 "servers". NAT-PT allowed for the opposite direction, IPv4  
"clients" connecting to IPv6 "servers" - NAT64 does not.

The server must have an A record in DNS, and the client must use that  
name to connect to - just like NAT-PT.

--
Nathan Ward