From owner-freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Wed Jun 26 19:58:48 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 3AACA15D0A64 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 19:58:48 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@927589452.de) Received: from alioth.uberspace.de (alioth.uberspace.de [185.26.156.45]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (Client did not present a certificate) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CC7785759 for ; Wed, 26 Jun 2019 19:58:47 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from mailinglists@927589452.de) Received: (qmail 3279 invoked from network); 26 Jun 2019 19:52:04 -0000 Received: from localhost (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by alioth.uberspace.de with SMTP; 26 Jun 2019 19:52:04 -0000 Date: Wed, 26 Jun 2019 21:48:16 +0200 From: J To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Cc: J Subject: Re: IPv6-only network--is NAT64+DNS64 really this easy now? Message-ID: <20190626194816.qi53z5q7l5immepn@deathbolt.927589452.space> References: <5e24739b-bbd0-d94a-5b0e-53fdeba81245@bluerosetech.com> <19784363-6543-ccc1-b13f-5f1a67dc10d1@bluerosetech.com> <20190625071943.vwswhj2lh6ctj4vy@deathbolt.927589452.space> <14695ff8-9796-4b4d-457e-e48818600745@bluerosetech.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <14695ff8-9796-4b4d-457e-e48818600745@bluerosetech.com> X-Info: Keep It Simple, Stupid. X-Operating-System: FreeBSD, kernel 12.0-RELEASE X-Message-Flag: WARNING!! Microsoft sucks User-Agent: Every email client sucks, this one just sucks less. X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 3CC7785759 X-Spamd-Bar: +++++ Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org X-Spamd-Result: default: False [5.94 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; XM_UA_NO_VERSION(0.01)[]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; TO_DN_SOME(0.00)[]; MX_INVALID(0.50)[cached]; IP_SCORE(-0.53)[ip: (-2.03), ipnet: 185.26.156.0/22(-0.33), asn: 58010(-0.26), country: DE(-0.01)]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[927589452.de]; AUTH_NA(1.00)[]; GREYLIST(0.00)[pass,body]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; RBL_VIRUSFREE_BOTNET(2.00)[45.156.26.185.bip.virusfree.cz : 127.0.0.2]; NEURAL_SPAM_MEDIUM(0.47)[0.465,0]; RCPT_COUNT_TWO(0.00)[2]; NEURAL_SPAM_LONG(1.00)[0.999,0]; NEURAL_SPAM_SHORT(0.29)[0.288,0]; R_SPF_NA(0.00)[]; FORGED_SENDER(0.30)[mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de,mailinglists@927589452.de]; R_DKIM_NA(0.00)[]; SUBJECT_ENDS_QUESTION(1.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:58010, ipnet:185.26.156.0/22, country:DE]; FROM_NEQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de,mailinglists@927589452.de]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(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 19:58:48 -0000 On 19-06-26 11:48:05, Mel Pilgrim wrote: > On 2019-06-25 0:19, mailinglists-freebsd-questions@927589452.de wrote: > > 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). thanks for clarifying, didn't realize it