nanog at daork.net
Wed Feb 18 03:07:06 UTC 2009
On 18/02/2009, at 3:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated
> the ietf has recanted and is hurriedly trying to get this back on
> track. of course, to save face, the name has to be changed.
Sort of - except it is only for IPv6 "clients" to connect to named
IPv4 "servers". NAT-PT allowed for the opposite direction, IPv4
"clients" connecting to IPv6 "servers" - NAT64 does not.
The server must have an A record in DNS, and the client must use that
name to connect to - just like NAT-PT.
More information about the NANOG