NAT64 was invented for a specific case (when apps use DNS and the right APIs).
We realized then that app/devices vendors are lazy, or just they are out of the market, so we invented 464XLAT, which uses the same concept as NAT64/DNS64, but improves it by using the CLAT, a small daemon code in the OS or the CPE to solve the problems of the literal addresses and non-APIs apps/devices.
We don’t need to tell the customers to disable IPv4 in their LANs, we need to make sure that we deploy CPEs that support CLAT. This way, users don’t need to throw away old devices or apps, neither learn anything about IPv4 or IPv6, and everybody is happy.
We are trying to solve a problem with NAT64 which we knew since it was invented that it can’t be solved. We don’t have the time (unless some magic is discovered) to now tell every ISP that is deploying IPv6 and NAT64, to instead of NAT64 have something different. The solution is there, if CPE vendors implement it, and we are talking about an available open source code (several implementations) that take a few bytes.
We are already doing this effort in v6ops, I started trying to tell the RFC7084 about the need to update it, but didn’t succeeded. It seems that now we may want to have instead of a CPE requirements including this, an additional document to be a must for CPE vendors to support it, in case the CPE expects “IPv4 old devices and apps” in the LANs (which is real world life, and will be for 3-5 years).
Regards,
Jordi
-----Mensaje original-----
De: ietf <ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx> en nombre de Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx>
Responder a: Ole Jacobsen <olejacobsen@xxxxxx>
Fecha: lunes, 31 de julio de 2017, 23:01
Para: Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx>
CC: <ietf@xxxxxxxx>
Asunto: Re: RESENDING - Incremental Deployment of IPv6-only Wi-Fi for IETF Meetings
You said:
>
> Brian, why on earth would we want to advertise IPv6 to IETF
> attendees? We invented IPv6. If we really can't run a v6-only
> network at IETF, what that says is that we have failed utterly and
> expensively. I do not believe that this is correct: IPv6 works very
> well.
Putting on my naive end-user hat:
That might be true, but here is the thing: "The mission of the IETF is
to make the INTERNET work better..." (my emphasis)
For at least a decade now, I've been told that I should "just use
IPv6" and some conferences have even "forced" me to do so.
I always respond with this question: "Does running IPv6 allow me to
connect to the Internet?" (meaning the v4 Internet for the most part).
The answer always seems to be: "Yes, but you have to manually
configure this and, oh by the way, this won't work at all and that app
might not behave as expected."
Demonstrating this to people who are experts seems like a waste
of time.
So it sounds to me like we HAVE indeed failed utterly and expensively.
99% of Internet users do not have any idea what version of IP they are
running just as they have no idea what a MAC address is or why/if they
should care.
I'd love to see IPv6 succeed, but it is apparently impossible to do so
without teaching end-users a lot of stuff they really have no interest
in or ability to learn. What a shame.
Ole
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.consulintel.es
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.