On 27 January 2015 at 16:43:31, Brian E Carpenter (brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com(mailto:brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com)) wrote:
> On 27/01/2015 16:16, Lindsay Hill wrote:
> > I'm not a big fan of any of those mechanisms, but I think that 464XLAT
> > makes some sense when used the way T-Mobile's done it, with Android
> > tablets/handsets they controlled.
>
> Exactly. There is no one-size-fits-all here, and that's where 464XLAT
> seems to hit the sweet spot. (I agree with Nathan that if you can
> roll out dual stack, it's the cleanest thing to do, but as the EUBA
> thread and the recent SNAP saga show, it isn't always as clean as
> all that.)
Not that 464XLAT would help in those situations of course, as it���d still be IPv6 over the access network, which wouldn���t work for the EUBA case. I���m not sure exactly what the Snap problem was, but I don���t imagine 464XLAT helping much there either.