Did you try it with Windows XP? Mac OS X?Do you really think manual port forwarding at the ISP level is ever going to work?? I doubt we'll see NAT64 in ROS but the big players are deploying it, It will likely end up another transition step after large scale ISP's find that NAT444 is just not worth the hassle.
Have you actually used NAT64 before? Its quite nice, There is a liveCD floating around, Very fun turning off v4 on your computer and having everything keep working
Web browsing worked fine, never ran into an issue. Skype worked for voice but I didnt try video (Never had a need) Existing NAT-busting methods used in alot of software works fine but will run into issues in a NAT444 setup. SIP and FTP had issues due to IP info carried inside the application level data. Some form of ALG ala NAT-PT will help with thisDid you try it with Windows XP? Mac OS X?Do you really think manual port forwarding at the ISP level is ever going to work?? I doubt we'll see NAT64 in ROS but the big players are deploying it, It will likely end up another transition step after large scale ISP's find that NAT444 is just not worth the hassle.
Have you actually used NAT64 before? Its quite nice, There is a liveCD floating around, Very fun turning off v4 on your computer and having everything keep working
When you say everything keeps working? What did you test? I'm sure outbound connections would work but what about P2P applications?
Skype?
What about http://66.102.11.104/
Or inbound connections can you remote desktop to an XP computer through NAT64?
How do inbound connections work from the IPv4 Internet?
Sorry to keep on about this, but what OS did you try this on?Web browsing worked fine, never ran into an issue. Skype worked for voice but I didnt try video (Never had a need) Existing NAT-busting methods used in alot of software works fine but will run into issues in a NAT444 setup. SIP and FTP had issues due to IP info carried inside the application level data. Some form of ALG ala NAT-PT will help with this
Ok, so I found the CD, downloaded it, had a play. Read the specs.,There is a liveCD floating around
http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6146If i may jump into conversation.
From what i notices MikroTik really loves when feature description is set in stone - so there are actual "Internet Standard".
From what i was able to find on this topic is:
a) http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-bagnulo- ... t64-03.txt
"This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2009"
b) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-b ... tateful-00
"This Internet-Draft will expire on January 5, 2010"
So, it is not even "Proposed Standard" not talking about "Draft Standard" and "Internet Standard"...
IF i'm missing something, please, provide me proper links
not really. it "should" not.v6 should be end to end connection. But if mikrotik released this feature that should be +10.
We really need NAT64. And also IPv6 NAT (not IPv6 masqureade, just NAT).Google just made a public DNS64 server, NAT64 gateway is more relevant then ever.
https://developers.google.com/speed/pub ... docs/dns64
It would be nice if my Hex router had the "NAT64" voodoo.To take the next step of the transition to IPv6 and deploy IPv6-only networks, network operators must still preserve access to IPv4-only networks and services. There are several transition mechanisms to provide IPv6 access to IPv4; an increasingly popular choice with many network operators is NAT64. Using a NAT64 gateway with IPv4-IPv6 translation capability lets IPv6-only clients connect to IPv4-only services via synthetic IPv6 addresses starting with a prefix that routes them to the NAT64 gateway.
DNS64 is a DNS service that returns AAAA records with these synthetic IPv6 addresses for IPv4-only destinations (with A but not AAAA records in the DNS). This lets IPv6-only clients use NAT64 gateways without any other configuration. Google Public DNS64 provides DNS64 as a global service using the reserved NAT64 prefix 64:ff9b::/96.
so, i hope other people interested in NAT64 will also request it. (i also mentioned 464XLAT in my request, so i assume that response applies to both.)We do not have any plans to add such a feature at the moment, but if more users will request it, we will see how this can be implemented.
PLAT is pretty much a required standard for many providers at this point. NAT64 would be a step toward better IPv6 adoption, and is a pretty gaping hole in Mikrotik ROS right now - I get asked about it frequently, and when the answer to Mikrotik customers is "yank out the CPE (for CLAT support) and the routers (for PLAT), you can probably guess the response.DNS64 is incompatible with DNSSEC. As both Android & iOS have supported 464XLAT for a number of years I would expect this approach, a Stateless IP/ICMP Translator (SIIT) at the client and NAT64 at the provider, to become more widespread so Mikrotik support for this would be good.
The ND pref64 is different, this is a protocol option in IPv6 RA that allows you to inform the client of your NAT64 prefix.Can anyone explain the current possibilities for NAT64 in Mikrotik?
I see there's parameter in IPv6 ND, but no clues anywhere else or example on how to use this:
pref64-prefixes (unspecified | ipv6 prefixes; Default: unspecified) Specify IPv6 prefix or list of prefixes within /32, /40. /48, /56, /64, or /96 subnet that will be provided to hosts as NAT64 prefixes.
I know the way to run tayga inside a container, but maybe there are more already built in?