Le mercredi 12 mars 2014, 17:36:59 Simon Perreault a écrit : > Le 2014-03-12 17:22, Stéphane Guedon a écrit : > >>> inet 192.168.87.2 netmask 0xffffff00 broadcast > >>> 192.168.87.255 > >> > >> Does that mean that you intend to do double NAT? NAT64 then > >> NAT44? > > > > I don't really intend, but have no choice... > > I didn't think of that aspect. Is that important ? > > Not really, no. It should work. Just curious what people actually do > with our NAT64 code... :)
cool... just after the mail, I thought the same (after all, nat is just a little transformation of packs on the router, why would it be a problem ? there's routers all other the net). Let's stop now my ignorance of net routing. The fact is that, now, your code don't work because I don't understand how to set it up. I have had a look at all the doc found on internet (official or not) and can' figure how how to transform 64:ff9b::/96 to inet and back. > > Simon [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature which had a name of signature.asc]
