brandon.galbraith at gmail.com
Wed Feb 18 03:13:59 UTC 2009
So we deploy v6 addresses to clients, and save the remaining v4
addresses for servers. Problem solved?
On 2/17/09, Nathan Ward <nanog at daork.net> wrote:
> 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.
> Nathan Ward
Sent from my mobile device
Email: brandon.galbraith at gmail.com
More information about the NANOG