Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> Huh? NAT64 can involves no host changes at all (other than not having IPv4 to
>> succeed in network attachment, and as Lorenzo said, IPv4 literals in some ancien
>> t protocols).
> I don't know if you consider http://192.0.2.1/ an ancient protocol, but this
> is typically something that breaks with NAT64.
Yes, I do consider it past it's time, but not as ancient as FTP.
It does have literals in the protocol, in the Host: header.
https://192.0.2.1/ is the modern equivalent, and due to the IPv4 literal,
does not get security, so it doesn't work.
--
Michael Richardson <mcr+IETF@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Sandelman Software Works
-= IPv6 IoT consulting =-
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
