Re: Ipv6 help

[Ca By <cb.list6 () gmail com>]

On Thu, Aug 27, 2020 at 1:00 AM Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>
wrote:

> I hope I’m not adding to any confusion. I find this conversation to be
> interesting and want it to be productive. I have not deployed 464XLAT and
> am only aware of android phones having a proper client.


Platforms with CLAT include:

Android (since 4.3)

Apple iOS (2 versions, HEv2 and real xlat)

Cisco iOS (this is just their SIIT)

Windows 10 (scoped only work on LTE modems)

Linux and OpenWRT

FreeBSD


I have worked with so many CPE devices and know that most have solid
> deployments of the required CLAT client. I also predict this will not
> change any time soon. I live in “actually works and is solid” world. Not in
> “I wish this would work” world.
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 27, 2020, at 2:50 AM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
>
> >
>
> > > On 27 Aug 2020, at 17:33, Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us>
> wrote:
>
> > >
>
> > > If an ISP provides dual-stack to the customer, then the customer only
> uses IPv4 when required and then will only use NAT444 to compensate for a
> lack of IPv4 address space when an IPv4 connection is required. What am I
> missing?
>
> >
>
> > Lots of assumptions people are making about how equipment is configured
> which is causing people to talk past each other.
>
> >
>
> > > > On Aug 27, 2020, at 1:20 AM, Mark Andrews <marka () isc org> wrote:
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > On 27 Aug 2020, at 15:58, Bjørn Mork <bjorn () mork no> wrote:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Brian Johnson <brian.johnson () netgeek us> writes:
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > > > 1) It needs *much less* IPv4 addresses (in the NAT64) for the same
> number of customers.
>
> > > > > >
>
> > > > > > I cannot see how this is even possible. If I use private space
>
> > > > > > internally to the CGN, then the available external space is the same
>
> > > > > > and the internal customers are the same and I can do the same over
> sub
>
> > > > > > ratio under both circumstance. Tell me how the math is different.
>
> > > > >
>
> > > > > Because NAT64 implies DNS64, which avoids NATing any dual stack
> service.
>
> > > > > This makes a major difference today.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Only if you don’t have a CLAT installed and for home users that is
> suicide
>
> > > > at there is too much IPv4 only equipment.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > What really pushes traffic to IPv6 is that hosts prefer IPv6 by
> default.  This
>
> > > > works as long as the clients see a dual stack network.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > And no NAT64 does not imply DNS64.  You can publish a ipv4only.arpa
> zone with
>
> > > > the mappings for the NAT64.  There are now also RA options for
> publishing these
>
> > > > mappings.  There are also DHCPv6 options.
>
> > > >
>
> > > > Mark
>
> > > >
>
> > > > > Bjørn
>
> > > >
>
> > > > --
>
> > > > Mark Andrews, ISC
>
> > > > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>
> > > > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org
>
> > > >
>
> > >
>
> >
>
> > --
>
> > Mark Andrews, ISC
>
> > 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
>
> > PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742              INTERNET: marka () isc org
>
> >