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

Re: changes to draft-ietf-v6ops-nat64-pb-statement-req-00.txt



Alain Durand escribió:
On 7/17/08 11:40 AM, "marcelo bagnulo braun" <marcelo@it.uc3m.es> wrote:
well, it seems that you will be having legacy IPv6 hosts (i.e. no new
mechanisms) that are running IPv6 apps that want to communicate with v4
hosts that are running ipv4 apps and in that case, this doesn't seem to work
The only thing that is required for dual-stack lite is a v4/v6 tunnel that
is present on most implementation I know, so no new code is needed.
And if this is still a problem, you can always use a router upstream to do
the encap for you.
but you would need to have v4 on your hosts, right?

No, you need a v4 stack, not a v4 address. That is the whole point of the
dual-stack lite model.
i guess i will need to read the draft then cause i fail to understand how useful could a stack wihtout an IP address could be

regards, marcelo


the assumption for translation is that you have v6 only nodes on one side

This is the part I'm challenging by making a distinction between v6-only,
dual-stack provisioned (v4 & v6) and dual-stack lite, where the host is
dual-stack capable but only provisioned with v6.

  - Alain.