'Upgrading' NAT64 to 464XLAT?

[Gert Doering]

Hi,

On Tue, Nov 26, 2013 at 12:55:18AM -0800, Doug Barton wrote:
> On 11/26/2013 12:31 AM, Gert Doering wrote:
> > I think he's saying that everyone should be using dual-stack, because
> > that's so much easier to roll out and maintain, and there's still plenty
> > of IPv4 left in the US region.
> 
> 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.

You completely missed the point about "dual-stack being so much easier
to roll out and maintain".

If I can get away with providing only a single-stack IPv6 *network*,
with some added warts for a small (we're talking mobile networks here,
and only a few applications there insist on being IPv4-only) subset 
that needs to do IPv4, this is a clear win.

And of course you need less IPv4 if most of your customer base is not
using IPv4.


Note that I didn't say I would do this in a "DSL style" mass market
deployment.


> And frankly I take offense at the gratuitous American bashing here. 

I wasn't bashing Americans in general here.

Gert Doering
        -- NetMaster
-- 
have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?

SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. Grundner-Culemann
D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
Tel: +49 (0)89/32356-444           USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20131126/8051191a/attachment.sig>