Production-scale NAT64

[cb.list6 at gmail.com (Ca By)]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 7:19 AM, Mark Tinka <mark.tinka at seacom.mu> wrote:

>
>
> On 26/Aug/15 16:13, Izaac wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'm curious about this too.  I'd like a solid list of providers to
> > avoid.
>
> NAT64 is opt-in.
>
> It will mostly be used for customers that can no longer obtain IPv4
> addresses.
>
> Service providers do not like NAT64 anymore than you do, but there needs
> to be some way to bridge both protocols in the interim.
>
> What you should be more interested in is which service providers have
> deployed it at scale where it is not causing problems, as those are the
> ones you want to be connected to when the IPv4-hell hiteth the faneth!
>
> Mark.
>

>From largish deployment ...

Another relevant metric, less than 25% of my mobile subscribers traffic
require NAT64 translating.  75+% of bits flows through end-to-end IPv6
(thanks Google/Youtube, Facebook, Netflix, Yahoo, Linkedin and so on ...).