On 01/08/2017 08:46, Ted Lemon wrote: > On Jul 31, 2017, at 4:31 PM, Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> And also, more and more people would >> become aware that nat64 breaks stuff. I suppose that's good too. As advertising >> for IPv6, it would do rather badly. > > 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. Indeed it does. I use it whenever possible. Dual stack works very well, too. > The point of having NAT64 is that it lets us actually run without any IPv4 on the wire and see what happens. If the only things that fail are things that go through NAT64, that's a good outcome, particularly if the number of things going through NAT64 that fail is small relative to the total number of things that go through it. There we differ. But then, I wrote RFC1671. Brian