nanog mailing list archives
Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:23:33 +0200
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives
Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2. We still need to find some solution to that problem. Best regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr () cluenet de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
Current thread:
- Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Aleksi Suhonen (Jun 08)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Mark Andrews (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Cameron Byrne (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Jeff Hartley (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Martin Millnert (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Daniel Roesen (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Jeff Hartley (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Daniel Roesen (Jun 10)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Cameron Byrne (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Mark Andrews (Jun 09)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Daniel Roesen (Jun 10)
- Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64 Mark Andrews (Jun 09)