nanog mailing list archives
Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
From: Jeff Hartley <intensifysecurity () gmail com>
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 18:39:18 -0400
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.
We've been using two workarounds: 1. Separate DNS resolvers (both BIND 9.8; one DNS64 and the other DNS6). Have the client provisioning system assign the appropriate DNS server IPs (dual-stack to anycast set 1, v6-only to anycast set 2). 2. Use range-specific views to determine whether or not to apply DNS64 (this setup isn't standard BIND, though). One is a kludge, and the other is vendor-specific, but they work. -Jeff
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)