<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Doug Barton <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dougb@dougbarton.us" target="_blank">dougb@dougbarton.us</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div><br>
Wait, what? The problem you describe is the one that 464xlat solves.<br>
</div></blockquote>
<br>
Didn't you just make my case? DNS64 didn't solve the problem, at best you can say it laid the groundwork for the (arguably) more thorough and (unarguably) dramatically more complex solution of 464xlat. And what was the delay between them?<br>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Are you suggesting that we should have designed 464xlat on day one instead of DNS64? That's a bit like saying that we should have designed fiber optics without having copper. If DNS64 had not been designed and implemented we wouldn't have 464xlat today.</div>
</div></div></div>