21–30 of 37 posts
It's not immediately clear from the page but this is a NAT style hack for people who don't have normal IPv6 connectivity, and NAT'ed connectivity is inferior to native.
NAT64 covers most of the cases. However, in my homelab experiements I very quickly found out that IPv4 literal addresses are a bit problematic for me. There are ways to fix that with 464XLAT/CLAT, but I never got around to deploying it. These days I'm just running dual-stack, with no NAT64. I hate NAT with a burning passion, so adding another layer of stateful NAT is a bit of a net negative in my eyes. Someday I'll g…
If you have NAT64, DNS64 and use “IPv6-mostly” option 108 on DHCP, then CLAT will be activated on supporting devices automatically - and then you can turn the dhcpv4 off when you see no leases on it :-) By now there is a fair amount of material, eg: https://indico.cern.ch/event/1274792/contributions/5444353/a...
But also CLAT should turn on if a PREF64 is known and no IPv4 is available, regardless of 108.
RedHat is working to get CLAT on regular Linux hosts, where it has been direly missing.
It's not immediately clear from the page but this is a NAT style hack for people who don't have normal IPv6 connectivity, and NAT'ed connectivity is inferior to native.
You either mistyped IPv4 as IPv6 or misunderstood the setup. There is native ("normal") IPv6, but no IPv4 except on the NAT64 host. Since IPv4 is almost always NATed for end hosts, it's not inferior in any way.
Not sure I entirely agree with : "Here is the classical topology of home network." ... "And all the LAN hosts have one /64 IPv6 prefix." Are people really deploying IPv6 like this? Rather than a /64 to a vlan? (Personally, in the home, I'm just using DHCPv6-PD to delegate a different /64 to each VLAN).
Who has multiple VLANs in a home network??
[0] Because what else would you use to decide how to block or permit traffic if you can't distinguish by the interface that the traffic came in on?
NAT64 covers most of the cases. However, in my homelab experiements I very quickly found out that IPv4 literal addresses are a bit problematic for me. There are ways to fix that with 464XLAT/CLAT, but I never got around to deploying it. These days I'm just running dual-stack, with no NAT64. I hate NAT with a burning passion, so adding another layer of stateful NAT is a bit of a net negative in my eyes. Someday I'll g…
Yes, VLANs add complexity -- even the obligatory IoT VLAN -- but I generally want to keep these IoT devices isolated anyway.
I wish it were possible to force major operating systems to prefer IPv4 over IPv6, which might be a viable workaround to a less reliable IPv6 workaround, but such a configuration appears to be unfeasible for mobile phones, Windows, and perhaps MacOS too.