Sorry to keep on about this, but what OS did you try this on?
XP SP3
If 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-behave-nat64-03.txt
“This Internet-Draft will expire on September 8, 2009”
b) http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-behave-v6v4-xlate-stateful-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 
Ok, so I found the CD, downloaded it, had a play. Read the specs.,
It’s really only designed to allow IP6 only clients to access IPv4 legacy servers.
It’s not meant for Ipv4 to Ipv6 connections and not designed to do P2P applications.
It might allow for Hole Punching in the way that firewalls allow reverse connections in RELATED state, but that’s all.
So once they get the ALG’s written, it will catch up to where NAT44 is now and you’ll be able to move on from Dual Stack to IPv6 Only Stack.
Its PoC code, Meant as a simple demo. I’m not even sure the linux code is being actively worked on. Anyway this topic is pointless as MT will never put something like NAT64 into ROS and alot of people around here already do NAT444.
aside NAT64 relevant things - 6877 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6877 was apprently common as say wiukd 6rd, DS, DS-lite or other things from that list https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_transition_mechanisms
(in which - ANY thing make sense and important).
from proprietary stuff among it perhaps MAP by CISCO was imprtant(rest, including ommited from article - not so much, perhaps. or even known at all).
fron “unemplemented yet” not finalised things i personally would care about IPv6 to IPv6 NAT(some would say “it make no sense”, but sadly it is. already 
v6 should be end to end connection. But if mikrotik released this feature that should be +10.
i second this, need NAT64 support.
not really. it “should” not.
and for that reasons both 4-to-6, 4-to-6 and even 6-to-6 NAT exist, just like 4-to-4 before. but implementation yet sporadic and incomplete, yet(to use “straight away/now”).
Google just made a public DNS64 server, NAT64 gateway is more relevant then ever.
https://developers.google.com/speed/public-dns/docs/dns64
Here’s to hoping IPv6 on Mikrotik will take a leap forward and become a more complete solution. With the IPv6 certification now available from Mikrotik, I’m crossing fingers they will press forward with an IPv6 implementation that is more usable.
We really need NAT64. And also IPv6 NAT (not IPv6 masqureade, just NAT).
Is anything new about NAT64? Maybe some new RouterOS version?
If not, maybe this could be useful (at least for testing): http://www.internetsociety.org/deploy360/blog/2016/08/new-nat64dns64-implementations-available-for-public-testing-in-go6lab/
Dear MT, Please consider NAT64!
Bump …
Is there anything new on this? As IPV4 addresses get in shorter demand?
Hi,
Any progress with nat64 and dns64?
Now in russia is actual, our internet regulator starting blocking sitews by IPv6 …
+1.
As I see from the forum, request for NAT64 support has been up for last 9 years already. Maybe the time wasn’t right then, but it definitely is now.
Adding NAT64 support would not be about NATing IPv6, but NATing the IPv4 hell out of the way to get rid of it faster, so it would definetly be engineering for the future.
Some arguments for NAT64:
- All the main content providers and CDNs have switched over to IPv6 already, so NAT64 would be declining, not increasing service
- DNS64 for Well-Known Prefix 64:ff9b::/96 is offered by both Google and CloudFlare, so no actual need for own DNS64 server, but no problem to configure it for Bind or others
- AppStores have had compatibility requirements for IPv6-only and NAT64 networks for several years now, so there’s no actual problems with recent apps and applications. For old applications there are other mechanisms available as NAT64 is subset of XLAT464.
- There will never be the time when all the internet services support IPv6, so we should NOT wait endlessly but start getting rid of IPv4 at our networks NOW.
At the moment stateless NAT64 takes two routing lines in edge router and external NAT64 device to get rid of IPv4. If Mikrotik would support NAT64, then it would take about two lines without the need for external NAT64 translation device.
Let NAT64 become a new NAT44!
Skype has been mentioned as a service that does not work in NAT64 enviroment, but it definitely works now.
Feature Request:
I wish Mikrotik would have NAT64. Im building a large wireless ISP for potential millions of users and IPv4 is something we would like to avoid completely and go directly to IPv6 only (there are no addresses available anyway). Doing NAT44 instead means a lot of more work to give out private IP addresses to every customer as well. This complicates things. We need to supply IPv6 anyway. So having only one infrastructure to deal with makes life simpler. If Mikrotik doesn’t do it, we need to put some Linux servers for that aside. The DNS64 part is easy (just a bind9 option).