[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 ]