On Sep 28, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote: > On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley <mark@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> >>>> +1 ... since the alternative is that apps that require ipv4 sockets and >>>> pass ipv4 literals are stranded on ipv6 only networks. >>>> >>>> Running code on the n900 shows that nat464 provides real user and >>>> network benefit >> >> Frankly, I preferred it when you were running IPv6-only without BIH on your trial, providing pressure to get rid of all those stranded literals and pushing apps to open ipv6 sockets :-/ >> >> - Mark > > We're still doing that, and IPv6-only is still my philosophical > preference and that is how we are launching the IPv6 + NAT64/DNS64 > service into the production mobile network (real soon now). No change > in that path. > > But some "power users" wanted their IPv4-only applications like Skype > to work so they coded a NAT46 work-around for the N900. It is clever, > it works. Ah, so it's not a model developed and (necessarily) supported by you. Thanks for the clarification. Yes, it makes sense that this would end up happening as the hosts evolve to what the network provides. - Mark > > Their process of feeling the pain of a very few pesky IPv4-only apps > and working around it is all documented here: > http://talk.maemo.org/showthread.php?t=60320 > > Running NAT46 code here: http://code.google.com/p/n900ipv6/wiki/Nat64D > > In the end (as well as IPv6-only near term in mobile), IP version > agnostic apps will prove to be more reliable and therefore will get > more market share. > > Cameron _______________________________________________ Ietf mailing list Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf