<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:55 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"><div><span style="color:rgb(34,34,34)">Which uses more IPv4 addresses, a traditional IPv4 NAT or 464xlat? At the end of the day the PLAT still has to talk to the v4 net.</span></div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Sure, but that's not the point of 464xlat.</div><div><br></div><div>In networks where 464xlat makes sense, having IPv4 as well as IPv6 is expensive in terms of scalability (in addition to in terms of operational cost, which is true everywhere). In those networks, it's much cheaper to run IPv4 over IPv6 as opposed to IPv4 as well as IPv6. This is why 464xlat exists.</div>
</div></div></div>