IPv6 Transition: Dual Stack options

fredmoogiefredmoogie Member Posts: 80 ■■□□□□□□□□
in CCNA & CCENT
currently we have a requirement to transition into ipv6 using dual stack.

we have on-site users as well as guest/visitors who will have ipv6 hosts who wants to access the internet to a mixture of ipv4/v6 web servers.

we hired a consultant and he advised the best way is using NAT-PT. i read online with the introduction of IETF-RFC4966 that NAT-PT has been depecrated/obsoleted, and that it's better to use NAT64.

any advices or suggestions. many thanks!
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

Comments

  • SubnetZeroSubnetZero Member Posts: 124
    In 2007 the IETF deprecated the NAT-PT translation solution (RFC4966) because translation was considered harmful...

    Here is from draft-jankiewicz-v6ops-v4v6biblio-03 - An Annotated Bibliography for IPv4-IPv6 Transition and Coexistence
    This solution attempted to provide transparent routing to end-nodes
    in an IPv6 realm trying to communicate with end-nodes in an IPv4
    realm and vice versa. This combined Network Address Translation and
    Protocol Translation. While it did mandate dual-stack support or
    special purpose routing requirements (such as requiring tunneling
    support) on end nodes, it did introduce issues that were considered
    harmful enough to lead to its deprecation in July 2007 by RFC 4966
    "Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator
    (NAT-PT) to Historic Status" RFC 4966 - Reasons to Move the Network Address Translator - Protocol Translator (NAT-PT) to Historic Status.

    Then In 2009 the IETF brought it back and renamed it NAT-PT to NAT64...

    So you're correct in that NAT-PT has been replaced by NAT-64 which is probably your best bet, of course I've never done this so don't listen to me :)

    Good luck!

    While no trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, several electrons were severely inconvenienced     :cool:
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • fredmoogiefredmoogie Member Posts: 80 ■■□□□□□□□□
    are u saying NAT-PT has been replaced by NAT64? or is it 2 different/separate technologies?

    what about DNS64? DNSSEC? Stateful? Stateless? ALGs?

    i am very junior and have been relying on mostly online articles which i am not familiar.

    some experts please chimed in and enlighten us all.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • SubnetZeroSubnetZero Member Posts: 124
    No it is different, there are some similarities but just like you said NAT64 supports DNS64 and DNSSEC and NAT-PT did not...

    While no trees were harmed in the transmission of this message, several electrons were severely inconvenienced     :cool:
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.