* William Herrin > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 1:22 PM, Ca By <cb.li...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 20, 2015 at 9:36 AM, William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > >> Seriously though, if you want to run a v6-only network and still > >> support access to IPv4 Internet resources, consider 464XLAT or > >> DS-Lite. > > > > NAT64 is a required component of 464XLAT. > > Sort of, technically, but not really.
Yes really. See below. > 464XLAT does not require DNS64 and provides client software with an > IPv4 interface. IPv4 software that has no idea IPv6 exists sends IPv4 > packets which get translated to IPv6 packets. Those packets are routed > to the carrier NAT box which then translates these specially crafted > IPv6 packets back to IPv4 packets. What do you think the «carrier NAT box» in 464XLAT is, exactly? No need to guess, we can check the 464XLAT specification: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877#section-2 > PLAT: PLAT is provider-side translator (XLAT) that complies with > [RFC6146]. It translates N:1 global IPv6 addresses to global > IPv4 addresses, and vice versa. Let's check that reference: http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146#section-1 > This document specifies stateful NAT64, a mechanism for IPv4-IPv6 > transition and IPv4-IPv6 coexistence. Lo and behold! Your 464XLAT «carrier NAT box» (a.k.a. «PLAT») *is* a NAT64 box. Thus, if you intend to deploy 464XLAT in production, you'll going to need a production scale NAT64 implementation. To answer the Jawaid's original question, I'm very happy with Jool (http://jool.mx) for my NAT64 (and SIIT) needs, which is a open-source Linux-based software solution. It has no problems handling several Gb/s of traffic using a couple of years old x86 server without any tuning, so if the capacity required is moderate this might be a cost-effective alternative to a dedicated boxes from the one of the router/network appliance vendors. Tore
