3 ms·
464XLAT still requires IPv4 boxes on the edge to translate IPv6 traffic back to IPv4. Whether that is two boxes or 20,000, the same is true for other CG-NAT sol
by ArchOversight 4y ago
464XLAT still requires IPv4 boxes on the edge to translate IPv6 traffic back to IPv4. Whether that is two boxes or 20,000, the same is true for other CG-NAT solutions. Someone somewhere is bearing the cost of translating.
- zamadatix 4y agoUsually you need a special box at the consumer side to do 464XLAT, it's not something you can just ask your customer's Netgear to do and it's usually more expensive if you want to provide it as the customer's rented router. CG-NAT however looks completely normal to all gear (other than the particular numbers assigned) except the 2 edge boxes. It's the ultimate cost saving kludge.
- cmeacham98 4y agoMost modern OSes (I know for a fact Android, iOS, and Windows) support automatically doing the 4->6 translation on their side (as a matter of fact, some cellular networks in the US are ipv6 only). I'm unsure if consumer routers would pass on the appropriate RA flag to tell the OS they need to do this in their default configuration however.
- zamadatix 4y agoWell the devices that support 464xlat already support IPv6 by definition. CG-NAT/464XLAT+Client NAT at the gateway is for the devices like the Rokus that don't support IPv6 at all.
- cmeacham98 4y agoNAT64 doesn't work if the connection is made to a hardcoded IP(v4) address rather than DNS entry, and that's way more common than you'd think! Thus why 464XLAT and similar exist.
- zamadatix 4y agoAbsolutely but CG-NAT would be NAT444 (i.e. double NAT to dual stack) not NAT64. I mean they probably did try NAT64 based on the description of the botched 1st attempt but CG-NAT would have negated the need for NAT64 in the first place. Putting a x464 CLAT that can gateway/NAT the local network everywhere would definitely achieve the same functional goal though, just more ISP devices.