nanog mailing list archives
Re: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
From: Daniel Roesen <dr () cluenet de>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 09:11:28 +0200
On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:39:18PM -0400, Jeff Hartley wrote:
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.
Not for SLAAC environments and others where there is no mandatory endpoint registration. E.g. residential LANs. 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)