Christian, I will focus on this part of your message: "So, if we could demonstrate that DNS64 is not needed for transition, that would be great." Actually, we don't need to demonstrate that given that NAT64 specification does not make any assumption how IPv4-converted IPv6 addresses are formed. We hoped this was clarified in RFC6889. But if you need a concrete example, there are deployments in which DNS64 is not used to synthesize addresses. You can refer to this prez: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2_7By2EgSY (1mn30) Cheers, Med > -----Message d'origine----- > De : ietf [mailto:ietf-bounces@xxxxxxxx] De la part de Christian Huitema > Envoyé : mercredi 2 août 2017 17:04 > À : ietf@xxxxxxxx > Objet : Re: Incremental Deployment of CLAT on the router for IETF Meetings > > > > On 8/2/2017 7:51 AM, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote: > > Then I guess we fully agree, and I believe I was the first one reminding > that our network is a production one … > > > > As we already had a NAT64 SSID for some time, the right step for IETF100 > will be then to have a CLAT SSID, so it can be tested by those folks that > want to test it. > > > > I’m happy to help the NOC team to do that if they need help. > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > That would be good, especially if the CLAT network did NOT include any > DNS64 function. There is a growing suspicion that hacking the DNS in the > name of IPv6 transition was a really bad idea. we have heard it many > times -- breaking DNSSEC, not working with VPN, or Netflix, or Skype. > Also, we know that a large fraction of DNS query are served by Google > DNS and other global providers, which means that the DNS64 hacking > server will not see them. So, if we could demonstrate that DNS64 is not > needed for transition, that would be great. > > -- Christian Huitema > > > -- > Christian Huitema >