> -----邮件原件----- > 发件人: ipv6-boun...@ietf.org [mailto:ipv6-boun...@ietf.org] 代表 Simon > Perreault > 发送时间: 2013年1月24日 17:50 > 收件人: ipv6@ietf.org > 主题: Re: RFC6724/RFC3484bis: Destination selection not considering > well-known NAT64 prefix > > 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.
not worse when IPv4 is NATed, but worse when IPv4 is native. > 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. But there does exist a possibility for that IPv4 of being native. > 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. This is just one possibility. Another possibility is just reverse. Xiaohu > Simon > -------------------------------------------------------------------- > IETF IPv6 working group mailing list > ipv6@ietf.org > Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 > -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- IETF IPv6 working group mailing list ipv6@ietf.org Administrative Requests: https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ipv6 --------------------------------------------------------------------
