It appears that Vasilenko Eduard <vasilenko.edu...@huawei.com> said: >-=-=-=-=-=- >1. 464XLAT is indeed an alternative, but a bad one: it means that the client >should have a local IPv4 subnet. >The DNS resolver should prepare the packet in IPv4 format, then fetch it to >the CLAT engine where it would be translated to IPv6.
I'm with Mark here. If you want to talk to IPv4 devices, it makes a lot more sense for your local router or device to give you an RFC1918 network which then lets you use the real far end IPv4 addresses and signed DNS records, than to require every bit of addresss management and DNSSEC code to do special hacks to try and peer through the other side of the NAT. R's, John _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
