On Sep 28, 2011, at 8:12 PM, Cameron Byrne wrote:
On Wed, Sep 28, 2011 at 9:26 AM, Mark Townsley <mark(_at_)townsley(_dot_)net>
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(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf