On Mon, Jul 9, 2012 at 10:18 AM, Behcet Sarikaya <sarikaya2...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 6, 2012 at 9:59 AM, Michael Richardson > <mcr+i...@sandelman.ca> wrote: >> >>>>>>> "Aleksi" == Aleksi Suhonen <aleksi.suho...@tut.fi> writes: >> Aleksi> Within an hour, all the IPv4 addresses in the pool for our >> Aleksi> NAT64 were registered to this one device. >> >> Do I understand that you attempt to provide a single IPv4 address 1:1 >> with a an internal IPv6 address? (NAT vs NAPT) > > It seems like this is what is called stateless NAT64. > I am not sure if there is any document specifying stateless NAT64? > > Regards, > > Behcet
Stateless = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6145 Stateful = http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146 If the goal is providing a dynamic access from an IPv6-only network toward IPv4-only internet, RFC 6146 is the optimal choice. RFC 6145 has limited use for the cases for IPv6 - > IPv4 since it is 1:1 mapping. Most people do IPv6 because IPv4 is limited, so ... doing 1:1 mapping does not really buy you anything. You can just use IPv4 and achieve the same scale. The best use case i have seen for RFC 6145 is for the data center environment http://fud.no/talks/20120417-RIPE64-The_Case_for_IPv6_Only_Data_Centres.pdf as well as the mapping of the entire IPv4 internet into IPv6 as is the case of 464XLAT CLAT in the IPv4->IPv6 scenario. CB -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
