YES :-)
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----- Von: ipv6-wg [mailto:ipv6-wg-boun...@ripe.net] Im Auftrag von Gert Doering Gesendet: Sonntag, 17. Mai 2015 19:28 An: Benedikt Stockebrand Cc: ipv6-wg@ripe.net IPv6 Betreff: Re: [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar Hi, On Sun, May 17, 2015 at 04:49:29PM +0000, Benedikt Stockebrand wrote: > Yes, of course you are right that this is a complex issue, but there's > a widespread tendency to carry the old limitations of today's IPv4 to > IPv6 even if there's no real need to do so. And Marc calling NAT64 a > working solution despite the fact that it breaks IPv6 the same way NAT > broke > IPv4 really asks to be balanced by a similarly oversimplified > statement going the other way:-) Actually, the whole point is that NAT64 does not touch IPv6, so it is not "breaking IPv6" - it ensures that IPv4 legacy is still reachable, even if you're inside an IPv6-only network. Which sounds quite positive to me, given the alternative is "run dual-stack everywhere, forever, because someone out there might still be IPv4-only"... Carriers can't "just turn off IPv4" if users still connect to IPv4-only sites... so what is worse, NAT44/CGN and dual-stack all the way to the client, or nice and shiny IPv6-only at the edges, and NAT64 for talking to the old Internet? Gert Doering -- NetMaster -- have you enabled IPv6 on something today...? SpaceNet AG Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14 Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann D-80807 Muenchen HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen) Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444 USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
