From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jun 26 18:48:17 2019 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 89E1915CF58A for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:48:17 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com) Received: from echo.brtsvcs.net (echo.brtsvcs.net [208.111.40.118]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 43687832A9 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:48:16 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com) Received: from chombo.houseloki.net (catnip [73.240.250.185]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256 client-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) client-digest SHA256) (Client CN "chombo.houseloki.net", Issuer "brtsvcs.net CA" (verified OK)) by echo.brtsvcs.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3C89538D0C; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:48:09 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [IPv6:2601:1c2:1402:1770:70d3:d328:7143:b8ad] (unknown [IPv6:2601:1c2:1402:1770:70d3:d328:7143:b8ad]) by chombo.houseloki.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 51F5D3162; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:48:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: IPv6-only network--is NAT64+DNS64 really this easy now? To: mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org References: <5e24739b-bbd0-d94a-5b0e-53fdeba81245@bluerosetech.com> <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com> <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space> From: Mel Pilgrim Message-ID: <14695ff8-9796-4b4d-457e-e48818600745@bluerosetech.com> Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 11:48:05 -0700 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.7.2 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 43687832A9 X-Spamd-Bar: --- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com designates 208.111.40.118 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=list_freebsd@bluerosetech.com X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-3.03 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+mx]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; TO_DN_NONE(0.00)[]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[bluerosetech.com]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[echo.brtsvcs.net,foxtrot.brtsvcs.net]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.93)[-0.930,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.79)[asn: 36236(-3.88), country: US(-0.06)]; RECEIVED_SPAMHAUS_PBL(0.00)[185.250.240.73.zen.spamhaus.org : 127.0.0.10]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:36236, ipnet:208.111.40.0/24, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[]; RCVD_TLS_ALL(0.00)[]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 18:48:17 -0000 On 2019-06-25 0:19, mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de wrote: > At the troopers con there was an v6 only network and most things already > worked, > The hardest thing is getting a real IPv&/ bigger than a /64 as this is > required by most systems. It's trivially easy to get routable prefixes up to a /48, and even Comcast will allocate a /60 to IA-PDs. What system requires a prefix shorter than /64 to number a subnet? > But i don't understand why you would use a NAT64, as one of the reasons > to use IPv6 is not needing a NAT NAT64 is not the same thing as NAT44 or NAT66 (the kind of NAT to which "IPv6 doesn't require NAT" refers).