3 retag (edit summary must have at least 10 characters)
| link
2 added 266 characters in body; edited title
source | link

What does NAT64 do which can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44NAT444?

Why was NAT64 developed? What does it do that can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44NAT444, and allocating your customers a (public) IPv6 and a (private) IPv4 address (behind a shared public IPv4 address)?

One of the drawbacks of NAT444 (pointed out in the comments) is that inbound connections require the customer to get the ISP to somehow map it for them. But NAT64 has the same issue for inbound IPv4 connections (AFAIK) so there is no improvement in this regard.

What does NAT64 do which can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44?

Why was NAT64 developed? What does it do that can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44, and allocating your customers a (public) IPv6 and a (private) IPv4 address (behind a shared public IPv4 address)?

What does NAT64 do which can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT444?

Why was NAT64 developed? What does it do that can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT444, and allocating your customers a (public) IPv6 and a (private) IPv4 address (behind a shared public IPv4 address)?

One of the drawbacks of NAT444 (pointed out in the comments) is that inbound connections require the customer to get the ISP to somehow map it for them. But NAT64 has the same issue for inbound IPv4 connections (AFAIK) so there is no improvement in this regard.

    Became Hot Network Question
    Tweeted twitter.com/StackNetworkEng/status/1149785627547901953
1
source | link

What does NAT64 do which can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44?

Why was NAT64 developed? What does it do that can't be done by deploying IPv6 + NAT44, and allocating your customers a (public) IPv6 and a (private) IPv4 address (behind a shared public IPv4 address)?