From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org  Tue Jun 25 10:17:35 2019
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org
Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1])
 by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 419D615C7619
 for <freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org>;
 Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:17:35 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org)
Received: from bede.qeng-ho.org (bede.qeng-ho.org [217.155.128.241])
 (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits))
 (Client did not present a certificate)
 by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EE36083E1E
 for <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>; Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:17:33 +0000 (UTC)
 (envelope-from freebsd@qeng-ho.org)
Received: from arthur.home.qeng-ho.org (arthur.home.qeng-ho.org [172.23.1.2])
 by bede.qeng-ho.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5AFD310378;
 Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:17:30 +0100 (BST)
Subject: Re: IPv6-only network--is NAT64+DNS64 really this easy now?
To: mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
References: <5e24739b-bbd0-d94a-5b0e-53fdeba81245@bluerosetech.com>
 <CANJ8om6WmNQWibnSCMR2hf09he-wWBUnBmY5Mnn7+NtvUHhcBQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com>
 <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space>
From: Arthur Chance <freebsd@qeng-ho.org>
Message-ID: <93a8bcd3-df22-7f9b-ef42-2791987eb7c7@qeng-ho.org>
Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 11:17:30 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; FreeBSD amd64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/60.7.2
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Language: en-US
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: EE36083E1E
X-Spamd-Bar: ----
Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org;
 spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of freebsd@qeng-ho.org designates
 217.155.128.241 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=freebsd@qeng-ho.org
X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.50 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[];
 NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[];
 R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip4:217.155.128.240/29];
 NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain];
 MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[];
 DMARC_NA(0.00)[qeng-ho.org]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[];
 MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: mx1.mythic-beasts.com];
 RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.92)[-0.915,0];
 RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[];
 R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[];
 ASN(0.00)[asn:13037, ipnet:217.155.0.0/16, country:GB];
 MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[];
 IP_SCORE(-2.27)[ip: (-6.86), ipnet: 217.155.0.0/16(-3.43), asn: 13037(-1.00),
 country: GB(-0.09)]; RCVD_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]
X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: User questions <freebsd-questions.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/options/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-questions/>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-questions@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions>, 
 <mailto:freebsd-questions-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 25 Jun 2019 10:17:35 -0000

On 25/06/2019 08:19, mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de wrote:
> At the troopers con there was an v6 only network and most things already
> worked,
> The hardest thing is getting a real IPv&/ bigger than a /64 as this is
> required by most systems.

Really? My ISP (Zen in the UK) gives you a /48 as standard (plus a /64
just for the link to them), and everything I've seen about IPv6 suggests
/48 or /56 assignments are the norms.

> But i don't understand why you would use a NAT64, as one of the reasons
> to use IPv6 is not needing a NAT

It's so nice to have servers with the same address in house as well as
externally.

-- 
What do we want?
A time machine!
When do we want it?
Errm ...