Hi, I would not recommend to run any nat over protocol versions for clients as you would need to break DNSsec. The clients creating connections should run dual-stack or dual-stack lite.
The only useful thing for service providers would be to proxy/nat lets say an incoming IPv6 connection to still only IPv4 servers/services. 2015-01-30 21:32 GMT+01:00 Eric Louie <elo...@techintegrity.com>: > On Fri, Jan 30, 2015 at 8:29 AM, Justin M. Streiner <strei...@cluebyfour.org >> wrote: > >> On Fri, 30 Jan 2015, Eric Louie wrote: >> >> It also sounds like the Internet (aka the upstream/Tier 1 carriers) don't >>> want me to advertise anything longer than my /32 into BGPv6. Is that >>> true? >>> (I'm getting that from the spamming comments made by others) Am I >>> supposed to be asking ARIN for a /32 for each region that I want to >>> address? (They turned down my request for an increase to a /28 last year) >>> >> >> Not true. A peek at the global IPv6 routing table shows lots of prefixes >> that are smaller than /32. One of the hopes with larger allocations and >> assignments was that there would be less bloat in the global IPv6 routing >> table because networks would need to announce fewer prefixes. How well >> that will hold up in practice remains to be seen :) >> >> As far as the v6 to v4 translation is concerned, I'm looking at that for >>> the future - for the time being, we will be dual-stacked. However, if we >>> move into a new area, based on our current IPv4 inventory, I don't really >>> have enough to assign to each new customer, so I was looking for ways to >>> allow those customers access to properties that are still IPv4 only. Is >>> there yet another way to do that? >>> >> >> If you assign a customer IPv6 space only, a translation mechanism is >> needed to allow that customer to reach Internet destinations that only >> speak IPv4 today. There's no way around that. >> >> jms >> > > What IPv6 to IPv4 translation mechanisms are available for networks with > multiple ingress/egress points?
