Le 2013-01-23 22:05, Philipp Kern a écrit :
was it a deliberate ommission that RFC6724 does not mention a precedence value
for the well-known NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96?
If a host has both IPv4 and IPv6 configured it should probably use the native
IPv4 connectivity to connect to the target instead of the translated
IPv6-to-IPv4 access.
This has been discussed in BEHAVE numerous times. The current consensus
is: no, NAT64 is not "worse" than IPv4.
From the host's point of view, you don't know that IPv4 is not NATed as
well. You don't even know if it is "native": it could be provided by
DS-Lite for all you know.
From the operator's point of view, if you deploy a NAT64 in a
dual-stack network, that probably means you *want* traffic to go over
NAT64 rather than over IPv4. You probably want *less* native IPv4
traffic in your network so that eventually you can make your network
fully IPv6-only.
Simon
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPv6 working group mailing list
ipv6@ietf.org
Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6
--------------------------------------------------------------------
