In message <20150827065346.58554...@echo.ms.redpill-linpro.com>, Tore Anderson writes: > Hi Mark, > > * Mark Tinka <mark.ti...@seacom.mu> > > > In our deployment, we do not offer customers private IPv4 addresses. I > > suppose we can afford to do this because a) we still have lots of > > public IPv4, b) we are not a mobile carrier. So any of our customers > > with IPv4 will never hit the NAT64 gateway. > > > > When we do run out of public IPv4 addresses (and cannot get anymore > > from AFRINIC), all new customers will be assigned IPv6 addresses. > > Why wait until then? > > Any particular reason why you cannot already today provide IPv6 > addresses to your [new] customers in parallel with IPv4? > > Tore
Or why you are looking at NAT64 instead of DS-Lite, MAP-E, or MAP-T all of which are better solutions than NAT64. NAT64 + DNS64 which breaks DNSSEC. -- Mark Andrews, ISC 1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: ma...@isc.org
