Re: Production-scale NAT64

[Mark Andrews <marka () isc org>]

In message <20150827065346.58554fa7 () echo ms redpill-linpro com>, Tore Anderson 
writes:
> Hi Mark,
>
> * Mark Tinka <mark.tinka () seacom mu>
>
> > In our deployment, we do not offer customers private IPv4 addresses. I
> > suppose we can afford to do this because a) we still have lots of
> > public IPv4, b) we are not a mobile carrier. So any of our customers
> > with IPv4 will never hit the NAT64 gateway.
> >
> > When we do run out of public IPv4 addresses (and cannot get anymore
> > from AFRINIC), all new customers will be assigned IPv6 addresses.
>
> Why wait until then?
>
> Any particular reason why you cannot already today provide IPv6
> addresses to your [new] customers in parallel with IPv4?
>
> Tore

Or why you are looking at NAT64 instead of DS-Lite, MAP-E, or MAP-T
all of which are better solutions than NAT64.  NAT64 + DNS64 which
breaks DNSSEC.

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