On Monday, May 30, 2016, Baldur Norddahl <baldur.nordd...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Like HE is doing? > > > > swmike@uplift:~$ dig +short AAAA ipv4.swm.pp.se @nat64.he.net > > 2001:470:64:ffff::d4f7:c88f > > swmike@uplift:~$ ping6 2001:470:64:ffff::d4f7:c88f > > PING 2001:470:64:ffff::d4f7:c88f(2001:470:64:ffff::d4f7:c88f) 56 data > bytes > > 64 bytes from 2001:470:64:ffff::d4f7:c88f: icmp_seq=1 ttl=42 time=316 ms > > 64 bytes from 2001:470:64:ffff::d4f7:c88f: icmp_seq=2 ttl=42 time=315 ms > > > > Now, pinging myself via DNS64/NAT64 service and getting 315ms RTT means > > the NAT64 isn't very local to me... :P > > > > It goes to the USA and back again. They would need NAT64 servers in every > region and then let the DNS64 service decide which one is close to you by > encoding the region information in the returned IPv6 address. Such as > 2001:470:64:[region number]::/96. > > An anycast solution would need a distributed NAT64 implementation, such > that the NAT64 servers could somehow synchronize state. A more simple > solution is just to have the DNS64 be anycast and have a DNS64 at each > NAT64 location with the DNS64 returning pointers to the local NAT64. > > Now, can we have a public MAP server? That might scale. The geo blockers > will hate it. What is not to like? > > MAP scale. I know folks think it is theoretically nice but.... Just curious, has anyone yet deployed MAP at scale? I know of several production and large scale nat64s (usually mobile 464xlat related), and a few large ds-lite, but never MAP in production at scale. Maybe i am missing something. CB Regards, > > Baldur >
