Re: IPv6 Confusion

[Brandon Galbraith <brandon.galbraith () gmail com>]

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