Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

[kpospisek () bigpond com]

Quoting:

> Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 09:31:22 +0200 (CEST)
> From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
> To: nanog list <nanog () nanog org>
> Subject: Re: Verizon DSL moving to CGN

> On Sun, 7 Apr 2013, Fabien Delmotte wrote:

> > CGN is just a solution to save time, it is not a transition mechanism  
> > through IPv6
> > At the end (IPv6 at home) you will need at list :
> > Dual stack or NAT64/ DNS64

> CGN doesn't stop anyone deploying dual stack. NAT64/DNS64 is dead in the 
> water without other mechanisms (464XLAT or alike).

Defusing the "dead-in-the-water" phrase:
An IPv4 solution with NAT64/DNS64 will still enable pure IPv6 SS devices
without built-in NAT46 to still access the majority of the IPV4 world.
(There are few IPV4-over-IPv6 technologies that can make a similar claim
so thats already one step ahead of the competition on the IPv4 sunset path)

XLAT464 (CLAT46+PLAT64) is now published as RFC6877. It is the most mature
sunset technology - Is a single vendor offering out there that either does
not already have a NAT64 function or doesn't have it in their roadmaps ?

Greets Karl Pospisek from Melbourne AU.