'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

[Doug Barton]

On 11/26/2013 12:22 AM, Lorenzo Colitti wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 5:19 PM, Doug Barton <dougb at dougbarton.us
> <mailto:dougb at dougbarton.us>> wrote:
>
>
>         Wait, what? The problem you describe is the one that 464xlat solves.
>
>
>     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?
>
>
> 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.

No, I'm saying that we never should have gone down the road at all.

But I'm really not interested in another pointless theological debate 
with you ... What I'm trying to point out here is that we've got 
NAT64/DNS64 sitting out there for well-meaning folks to stumble into 
with no idea that it's neither a thorough nor a robust solution. If 
464xlat is the right answer to that particular problem then its 
proponents need to get to work on the HOWTOs.

Doug