This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/

[ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar (was: Re: IPv6 only as default for next meeting)
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

Benedikt Stockebrand bs at stepladder-it.com
Sun May 17 18:52:36 CEST 2015

Hi Dan and list,

🔓Dan Wing <dwing at cisco.com> writes:

> On 15-May-2015 02:25 am, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote:
>> [Implications of NAT64] 
>
> To avoid some of that, they can go IPv6-only, including their servers
> and all peers they communicate with, then there doesn't need to be
> NAT64 for their traffic.  But even IPv6-only they will need firewall
> traversal support, as firewalls by default will block unsolicited
> incoming traffic (RFC6092).

I'm not sure if I get you correctly, but: Do you mean IPv6 only, or
dual-stacked servers (so whatever a client connects with works without
translation)?


Cheers,

    Benedikt

-- 
Benedikt Stockebrand,                   Stepladder IT Training+Consulting
Dipl.-Inform.                           http://www.stepladder-it.com/

          Business Grade IPv6 --- Consulting, Training, Projects

BIVBlog---Benedikt's IT Video Blog: http://www.stepladder-it.com/bivblog/

Previous message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar (was: Re: IPv6 only as default for next meeting)
Next message (by thread): [ipv6-wg] Implications of NAT/NAT64 and similar

Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

[ ipv6-wg Archives ]