nanog mailing list archives

Re: Public DNS64


From: Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>
Date: Sat, 16 Aug 2014 08:11:04 +1000


For a public DNS64 service you also need a public NAT64.  I suppose
anyone willing to run a Tor exit node might be also willing to run
such a service but it would be a traffic source anonymiser and
likely would be abused.

That said I could see it as a commercial service where only certain
sets of IPv6 clients get to use the service with a strict mapping
to IPv4 source addresses, logging etc.  A ISP which had already set
this up for themselves and had enough IPv4 addresses could offer
this to IPv6 only ISP's as a service they could buy.

Similarly a consortium of ISPs could set this up for their members
possibly pooling IPv4 addresses from the members.

Someone like HE might like to run such a service to further promote
IPv6.

This is something transit providers might get into.  IPv6 to IPv4
Translation services for IPv6 only clients.

The same arguements also work for DS-Lite.

Mark

In message <CAE_ug15pz69UOwQZ1z0kOKc+zE2s7j2H8-qoeo-QkE=M-jCKQg () mail gmail com>, Tim Durack writes:
Yeah, sort of agree, except I'm allergic to running services that aren't
straight bit shoveling. NAT64 is pushing it, but at least that is just
announcing a prefix.


On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 2:33 PM, Rubens Kuhl <rubensk () gmail com> wrote:




On Fri, Aug 15, 2014 at 3:29 PM, Tim Durack <tdurack () gmail com> wrote:

Anyone know of a reliable public DNS64 service?

Would be cool if Google added a Public DNS64 service, then I could point
the NAT64 prefix at appropriately placed boxes in my network.

Why? Other people are better than me at running DNS resolvers :-)


No one is better than you at running DNS resolvers with low latency from
your network. Even if they can run DNS resolvers with magical capabilities,
they will still suffer from transit time.


Rubens





-- 
Tim:>
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka () isc org


Current thread: