Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753194AbaBYCXN (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:23:13 -0500 Received: from order.stressinduktion.org ([87.106.68.36]:50583 "EHLO order.stressinduktion.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752172AbaBYCXM (ORCPT ); Mon, 24 Feb 2014 21:23:12 -0500 Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 03:23:10 +0100 From: Hannes Frederic Sowa To: Ben Hutchings Cc: David Miller , dcbw@redhat.com, mcgrof@do-not-panic.com, zoltan.kiss@citrix.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net Subject: Re: [RFC v2 2/4] net: enables interface option to skip IP Message-ID: <20140225022310.GH6598@order.stressinduktion.org> Mail-Followup-To: Ben Hutchings , David Miller , dcbw@redhat.com, mcgrof@do-not-panic.com, zoltan.kiss@citrix.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org, xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, kuznet@ms2.inr.ac.ru, jmorris@namei.org, yoshfuji@linux-ipv6.org, kaber@trash.net References: <1393266120.8041.19.camel@dcbw.local> <20140224.180426.411052665068255886.davem@davemloft.net> <1393286520.6823.123.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> <20140224.191238.921310808350170272.davem@davemloft.net> <1393293719.6823.148.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1393293719.6823.148.camel@deadeye.wl.decadent.org.uk> Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Tue, Feb 25, 2014 at 02:01:59AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote: > On Mon, 2014-02-24 at 19:12 -0500, David Miller wrote: > > From: Ben Hutchings > > Date: Tue, 25 Feb 2014 00:02:00 +0000 > > > > > You can run an internal network, or access network, as v6-only with > > > NAT64 and DNS64 at the border. I believe some mobile networks are doing > > > this; it was also done on the main FOSDEM wireless network this year. > > > > This seems to be bloating up the networking headers of the internal > > network, for what purpose? > > > > For mobile that's doubly inadvisable. > > I don't know what the reasoning is for the mobile network operators. > They're forced to do NAT for v4 somewhere, and maybe v6-only makes the > access network easier to manage. Yes, it seems the way to go: I can't comment on the 464xlat that much because I haven't looked at an implementation yet, but it can very well be the case it still needs IPv4 on the outgoing interface, I don't know (from the spec pov it doesn't look like that). Greetings, Hannes -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/