On 17-May-2015 09:52 am, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs@stepladder-it.com> wrote:
Hi Dan and list,
🔓Dan Wing <dwing@cisco.com> writes:
On 15-May-2015 02:25 am, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs@stepladder-it.com> wrote:
[Implications of NAT64]
To avoid some of that, they can go IPv6-only, including their servers and all peers they communicate with, then there doesn't need to be NAT64 for their traffic. But even IPv6-only they will need firewall traversal support, as firewalls by default will block unsolicited incoming traffic (RFC6092).
I'm not sure if I get you correctly, but: Do you mean IPv6 only, or dual-stacked servers (so whatever a client connects with works without translation)?
Go IPv6-only. If servers run IPv4 there will be a NAT on path, necessitating the NAT traversal support in the client. But IPv6-only reduces the market to only those homes/businesses with IPv6. Short version of what I'm saying: there is no way to avoid NAT translation support in the client. -d