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

On 17-May-2015 09:52 am, Benedikt Stockebrand <bs at stepladder-it.com> wrote:
> 
> 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)?

Go IPv6-only.  If servers run IPv4 there will be a NAT on path, necessitating the NAT traversal support in the client.  But IPv6-only reduces the market to only those homes/businesses with IPv6.  Short version of what I'm saying:  there is no way to avoid NAT translation support in the client.

-d