> 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. Making IPv6 hosts deal with all the brokenness of IPv4, which includes NAT, small PMTUs, bad ICMPs, is not progress. And then the way DNS64 breaks with local DNSSEC validation is another negative factor. Of course, any host can avoid that by running 464xlat. Which just comes at the cost of hard to diagnose network problems. Of course this proposal makes it even worse by running native IPv4 next to pure NAT64 and 464xlat (and of course native IPv6 as well), making it extra hard for any operator to figure out what is going on. This is just something that should not be deployed. -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
