On 4/Jul/16 11:04, Tore Anderson wrote:
My point is that as a content provider, I only need dual-stacked façade. That can easily be achieved using, e.g., protocol translation at the outer border of my network.
The inside of my network, where 99.99% of all the complexity, devices, applications and so on reside, can be single stack IPv6-only today.
Thus I get all the benefits of running a single stack network, minus a some fraction of a percent needed to operate the translation system. (I could in theory get rid of that too by outsourcing it somewhere.)
The NAT64 translation still requires a dual-stack deployment. Of course, it is a smaller % of your overall single-stack IPv6 network, but still there nonetheless. The advantage with NAT64, as you say, is that it easier to rip it out when the IPv4 Internet dies a happy death, than it would be if one were keeping IPv4 primary and sticking IPv6 duct tape on top. Mark.