On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> wrote:
> > > On 26/Aug/15 16:13, Izaac wrote: > > > Yes, I'm curious about this too. I'd like a solid list of providers to > > avoid. > > NAT64 is opt-in. > > It will mostly be used for customers that can no longer obtain IPv4 > addresses. > > Service providers do not like NAT64 anymore than you do, but there needs > to be some way to bridge both protocols in the interim. > > What you should be more interested in is which service providers have > deployed it at scale where it is not causing problems, as those are the > ones you want to be connected to when the IPv4-hell hiteth the faneth! > > Mark. > >From largish deployment ... Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic require NAT64 translating. 75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6 (thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and so on ...).
