On Wed, 24 Jun 2020, 16:04 , <otroan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> The key point of the option is that host does not need IPv4.
> I agree with some commenters that it isn't obvious that it implies that NAT64
> is available. But, we have other signals for that, I think.
>
> NAT64 puts *no* requirements on the hosts (except that they be willing to
> succeed network attachment without IPv4).
Apart from forcing all IPv6 applications to be compliant with the NAT "architecture".
That's true, unfortunately. That said, I think it'ss also the only transition mechanism that works without the host having an ipv4 address, and thus the only one that is a step along the way to true IPv6-only hosts.
-- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
