Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:48:05 -0700 From: Mel Pilgrim <list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com> To: mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: IPv6-only network--is NAT64+DNS64 really this easy now? Message-ID: <14695ff8-9796-4b4d-457e-e48818600745@bluerosetech.com> In-Reply-To: <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space> References: <5e24739b-bbd0-d94a-5b0e-53fdeba81245@bluerosetech.com> <CANJ8om6WmNQWibnSCMR2hf09he-wWBUnBmY5Mnn7%2BNtvUHhcBQ@mail.gmail.com> <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com> <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 2019-06-25 0:19, 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. It's trivially easy to get routable prefixes up to a /48, and even Comcast will allocate a /60 to IA-PDs. What system requires a prefix shorter than /64 to number a subnet? > But i don't understand why you would use a NAT64, as one of the reasons > to use IPv6 is not needing a NAT NAT64 is not the same thing as NAT44 or NAT66 (the kind of NAT to which "IPv6 doesn't require NAT" refers).
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?14695ff8-9796-4b4d-457e-e48818600745>