On 27 January 2015 at 16:43:31, Brian E Carpenter (email@example.com(mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org)) 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.