[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Except for the fact that it's actually not so uncommon for "clients" to act as servers some of the time. Things have long ago left the days of clients were only clients and have since moved on to a muddier state of affairs.
From: Brandon Galbraith [mailto:brandon.galbraith at gmail.com]
Sent: Tuesday, February 17, 2009 10:14 PM
To: Nathan Ward; nanog list
Subject: Re: IPv6 Confusion
So we deploy v6 addresses to clients, and save the remaining v4
addresses for servers. Problem solved?
On 2/17/09, Nathan Ward <nanog at daork.net> wrote:
> On 18/02/2009, at 3:23 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>>> I find it a shame that NAT-PT has become depreciated
>> the ietf has recanted and is hurriedly trying to get this back on
>> track. of course, to save face, the name has to be changed.
> Sort of - except it is only for IPv6 "clients" to connect to named
> IPv4 "servers". NAT-PT allowed for the opposite direction, IPv4
> "clients" connecting to IPv6 "servers" - NAT64 does not.
> The server must have an A record in DNS, and the client must use that
> name to connect to - just like NAT-PT.
> Nathan Ward
Sent from my mobile device
Email: brandon.galbraith at gmail.com