On 1/15/2010 23:45, Owen DeLong wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2010, at 7:53 PM, Jim Burwell wrote: > >> Sorry for late response here... >> >> On 1/14/2010 15:20, Cameron Byrne wrote: >>> On Thu, Jan 14, 2010 at 3:00 PM, Jim Burwell <j...@jsbc.cc >>> <mailto:j...@jsbc.cc>> wrote: >>> >>>> On 1/14/2010 11:10, Cameron Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>> Folks, >>>>> >>>>> My question to the community is: assuming a network based IPv6 to IP4 >>>>> translator is in place (like NAT64 / DNS64), are IPv6-only Internet >>>>> services viable as a product today? In particular, would it be >>>>> appropriate for a 3G /smartphone or wireless broadband focused on at >>>>> casual (web and email) Internet users? Keep in mind, these users have >>>>> NAT44 today. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> You may also want to read up on Dual Stack Lite (DS-Lite) >>>> <http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-softwire-dual-stack-lite-02>, >>>> >>> I have looked at DS-lite very carefully. First, DS-Lite fits better >>> for cable operators since they have CPE and can have a DS-lite >>> function in the CPE that they control, and that in turn allows them to >>> provide IPv4, IPv6, and dual-stack to the end-host that they do not >>> control. DS-Lite does not fit as well for a mobile phones since it >>> would require a major change to the phone's OS. Second, DS-Lite >>> requires tunneling as well as translation, so it is one more piece of >>> overhead in addition to NAT64 solution. For me, i believe it is less >>> complex to manage a single stack IPv6 host with NAT64 translation than >>> a dual stack host, tunneling infrastructure, as well as NAT44 CGN, >>> which is what DS-lite requires. They both achieve the same result, >>> but I believe in the mobile space there is a quicker time to market as >>> well as more progress toward the end-goal of IPv6-only using NAT64 >>> than DS-lite. >>> >> I guess the choice here is between standing up and managing a NAT64 CGN >> + special DNS64 DNS server infrastructure, or a DS-Lite CGN + DS-Lite >> tunneling infrastructure (you'd be able to keep existing "vanilla" DNS >> servers). >> >> > As I understand DS-Lite, an IPv6-capable device is a DS-Lite capable > device > without any modification. The DS-Lite Gateway does all the heavy lifting > to provide IPv4 services and do the NAT64 translation between the > IPv6-only > end-user device (phone) and the IPv4 internet. > Could well be the case. My idea was that you could do it either way. You could have a DS-Lite gateway (Typical. Likely built into the "cable modem" or similar device), or in the case where no gateway is available, a DS-Lite "client" (basically a virtual nic/tunnel driver) on the machine would establish the tunnel and an IPv4 address itself. But perhaps this latter method was never intended?
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
