Feelings about NAT64/DNS64?

[George Bonser]

> 
> I have seen many implementations of NAT64 in the data center.  In
> fact. ipv6.t-mobile.com is NAT64.  It is very common for a service
> that is IPv4-only today to put a load-balancer with an IPv6 VIP/VS
> facing the IPv6 internet and have pool members that are IPv4-only

That is exactly our initial step in providing v6 services.  Simple and
not disruptive of the internal infrastructure at that point.

> IPv6-Internet--->NAT64/Load Balancer---->IPv4-only legacy server.

Yes, exactly it.

> I normally don't think of NAT64 like this, i too usually think about
> NAT64 benefits for the eyeball networks, but this case in the data
> center, which is a common IPv6 migration step, is also NAT from 6 to
> 4.

True, and our servers in this case play two roles.  You might think of
them as proxies.  They take a connection from an external client and
then make a transaction on behalf of that client with a third party.  So
for one side of the transaction, it looks like a server but for the
other side of the transaction it looks like an "eyeball" network.  So
from the aspect of the third parties involved, my network will look like
an "eyeball network" and that is the portion where I believe NAT64 is
the better choice.

> 
> I completely agree that content MUST be presented to the Internet as
> dual-stack, but eyeballs will have no choice but to go IPv6-only as
> IPv4 is simply not available.

Yes, Cameron, that is where I believe I am headed.  To get content, the
remote clients will contact a dual-stacked load balancer.  When my
servers must connect outbound to a third party, I am currently planning
to use NAT64 on that portion of the path.

Thanks for your thoughts

George