RE: IPv6 Confusion

[Skywing <Skywing () valhallalegends com>]

Except for the fact that it's actually not so uncommon for "clients" to act as servers some of the time.  Things have 
long ago left the days of clients were only clients and have since moved on to a muddier state of affairs.

- S


-----Original Message-----
From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:brandon.galbraith () gmail com] 
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:14 PM
To: Nathan Ward; nanog list
Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion

So we deploy v6 addresses to clients, and save the remaining v4
addresses for servers. Problem solved?

-brandon

On 2/17/09, Nathan Ward <nanog () daork net> wrote:
> 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

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

Brandon Galbraith
Voice: 630.400.6992
Email: brandon.galbraith () gmail com