Re: where is /etc/hosts supposed to come from?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: where is /etc/hosts supposed to come from?
- From: Philipp Kern <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Fri, 1 Jan 2010 13:11:49 +0000 (UTC)
- Message-id: <[🔎] email@example.com>
- Reply-to: firstname.lastname@example.org
- References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20091227222253.GA19353@dario.dodds.net> <email@example.com> <20091229000312.GD24377@xvii.vinc17.org> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <20091229114613.GB31978@angband.pl> <email@example.com> <20091230173620.GF18722@khazad-dum.debian.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <[🔎] email@example.com>
On 2010-01-01, Florian Weimer <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> * Philipp Kern:
>>> That's false. You can use protocol-level gateways, which do NAT and PT
>>> (protocol translation).
>> Can you point me to one please?
> There's DNS64 and BEHAVE, probably with some free implementation. Of
> course, there are hardly any users because the entire IPv6 user base
> is rather small, and we're talking about a renegade faction of that.
I wouldn't call them renegade, to be honest. I wondered back then how
to achieve an IPv6-only network to check applications for compatibility,
but missed the option to still connect to IPv4 hosts without the use
of proxies. I don't care about the additional NAT layer because I'm
NATed anyway. Thanks for those pointers, although the implementations
seem to be missing (not for Windows but for others as it seems).
> IOS has NAT-PT support, IIRC. It's also patent-encumbered.
Oh ok, I just saw documents deprecating NAT-PT altogether, but I didn't
know the latter.
Thanks a lot,