On Wed, Jun 24, 2020 at 7:15 PM Philip Homburg <pch-ietf-7@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > 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. I'm not sure how this proposal is different from having two VLANs - one is dual-stack and one is IPv6-only. The only difference is that all hosts belong to one IPv6 subnet. Actually you can say exactly the same about any dual-stack network. It's hard to troubleshoot because sometimes the device is using IPv4, sometimes it's using IPv6... I found it *much* easier to capture/troubleshoot flows in one protocol than in two. > This is just something that should not be deployed. Are you suggesting we move to run IPv4-only hosts and 464xlat on the first-hop routers? Unfortunately there are networks where this would not work. -- SY, Jen Linkova aka Furry -- last-call mailing list last-call@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/last-call
