So we deploy v6 addresses to clients, and save the remaining v4 addresses for servers. Problem solved?
-brandon On 2/17/09, Nathan Ward <na...@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 Brandon Galbraith Voice: 630.400.6992 Email: brandon.galbra...@gmail.com
