[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64

Subject: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
From: dr at cluenet.de (Daniel Roesen)
Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2011 21:23:33 +0200
In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>

On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 07:39:17AM -0700, Cameron Byrne wrote:
> Each solution fits well for some set of constraints and objectives

Indeed. Unfortunately there's no good way to support v6-only clients in
an environment, where dual stacked endpoints do exist as well, see
RFC6147 (DNS64) ch. 6.3.2.

We still need to find some solution to that problem.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0

Follow-Ups:
- Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
  - From: intensifysecurity at gmail.com (Jeff Hartley)

References:
- Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
  - From: nanog-poster at axu.tm (Aleksi Suhonen)
- Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
  - From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
  - From: cb.list6 at gmail.com (Cameron Byrne)

Prev by Date: IPv6 day non-participants
Next by Date: World IPv6 Only Day.
Previous by thread: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
Next by thread: Quick comparison of LSNs and NAT64
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread