On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 7:01 PM, Randy Bush <randy@xxxxxxx> wrote:
>>> DNS64 is not the only solution for a ISP to go IPv6 only.
>> 64 was motivated by the need for a 6-only *enterprise*
>
> And DNS64 requires NAT in the core and a fork lift upgrade of the
> CPE to support IPv6.
no. let's try reading what i said again. i requires nat at the edge of
the V6-ONLY ENTERPRISE. considering the enterprise is v6-only and
trying to talk to a v4 world, address translation is inevitable.
Actually it requires NAT, the NAT does not need to be at the egress point from the network. It could be provided by a NAT tied to the destination network.
Mark we avoid talking in acronyms? What is this CPE requiring a fork lift truck? And what does Nintendo have to do with this?
If you spell out the acronym Network Address Translation, it becomes obvious that Randy is right - it has to happen somewhere.