5 ms·
Dual-stack was the only coexistence option for a long time, until NAT64 came around. There were a whole bunch of attempts at compatibility, e.g. with "::1.1.1.
by eqvinox 6mo ago
Dual-stack was the only coexistence option for a long time, until NAT64 came around. There were a whole bunch of attempts at compatibility, e.g. with "::1.1.1.1" and "::ffff:1.1.1.1" as IPv6 addresses, they just didn't go anywhere. (Well, not quite, the latter is in POSIX and in socket libraries around the planet. Doesn't leave the host though. At least it's not supposed to. I have some horror stories…)
NAT64 started happening because it solves real problems — large eyeball networks, particularly mobile phone networks, didn't want to pay for twice as large table sizes on their routers and twice the maintenance effort. So they made IPv6 end hosts capable of connecting to IPv4 systems. But this is 2010 era, IPv6 was ≈15 years old at that point!
- Dagger2 6mo agoNAT64 is a subset of a different thing that existed since 2000 though, when v6 was ~5 years old and before most OSs even had support for it.
- eqvinox 6mo agoWhat would that "thing" be?
- Dagger2 6mo agoSee RFC 2766.
- eqvinox 6mo agoAh, right, that one with all the ALGs. Kinda NAT64's ancestor, though I have no idea of the evolution/development process. I don't believe this ever worked at scale, even if it is pretty much NAT64. Particularly the part where IPv4 hosts can reach IPv6 systems with the NAT-PT tracking through DNS what is given out in A records is "a bit much".