In planning for IPv4 exhaust, i have been tinkering with NAT64/DNS64 in preparation to launch it with customers. In my experience it works well, my phone has been Ipv6-only + NAT64 for over 6 months.... no major roadblocks. There have also been other documented NAT64 deployments that work well, especially on mobile devices http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-arkko-ipv6-only-experience-01 I do not believe that there is much risk in deploying NAT64, the customer experience can be engineered on mobile to be very good, but there is some minor risk that does not need to be there because of content providers using IPv4 literals, which are IPv4 address embedded in content (HTML, XML, apps...). I think across the industry people believe using names (FQDNs) is a better practice than embedding IPv4 addresses, nonetheless it happens. So, in an effort to help content providers understand that IPv6-only customers will not be able to access their IPv4 literal laden content, i have created this group http://groups.google.com/group/ipv4literals The group is not about name and shame or fixing every instance of literals, it is about making sure that the risks of using IPv4 literals are known by the content providers and that they have a good opportunity to fix it, start using FQDNs or deploy IPv6. Also, if anyone has a good nytimes.com or Amazon video on demand contact, you may want to forward this on to them. Thanks, Cameron http://groups.google.com/group/ipv4literals http://groups.google.com/group/tmoipv6beta