<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Sun, Dec 7, 2014 at 5:53 AM, Bjørn Mork <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bjorn@mork.no" target="_blank">bjorn@mork.no</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class="">> p.s: 464xlat was never considered because I always thought of it as a<br>
> mobile solution.<br>
<br>
</span>I don't see why. If you can enable some other tunnelling solution on the<br>
CPE, then 464xlat should also be an option?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>From a technical perspective, 464xlat is pretty much the worst. It has all the disadvantages of DS-Lite, and additionally is less transparent because translation is lossier than encapsulation.</div><div><br></div><div>Its advantages were that it didn't require any protocol work or provisioning work, and NAT64 implementations already existed, so it was ready much sooner than everything else. It can be implemented relatively easily in userspace in hosts. The mobile networks that were under pressure to go IPv6-only a) already weren't providing transparent IPv4 because they were using CGN and b) couldn't deploy DS-Lite because the encapsulation would have broken the DPI mechanisms they used for billing.</div><div><br></div><div>Now, of course, it has the advantage that it's fairly widely deployed.</div><div><br></div><div>I'd say it's a good fit for mobile networks, but perhaps not so much for wireline.</div></div></div></div>