[sgjohnson]

NAT64 covers most of the cases. However, in my homelab experiements I very quickly found out that IPv4 literal addresses are a bit problematic for me.

There are ways to fix that with 464XLAT/CLAT, but I never got around to deploying it.

These days I'm just running dual-stack, with no NAT64. I hate NAT with a burning passion, so adding another layer of stateful NAT is a bit of a net negative in my eyes.

Someday I'll go full IPv6 on my home network with 464XLAT. And then I'll realize that some stupid IoT device or something is not CLAT aware. Obviously there are solutions around that too, but they require an intermediate device.

[ay]

If you have NAT64, DNS64 and use “IPv6-mostly” option 108 on DHCP, then CLAT will be activated on supporting devices automatically - and then you can turn the dhcpv4 off when you see no leases on it :-)

By now there is a fair amount of material, eg:

https://indico.cern.ch/event/1274792/contributions/5444353/a...

[eqvinox]

Nit: you still need DHCPv4 to send 108 ;)

But also CLAT should turn on if a PREF64 is known and no IPv4 is available, regardless of 108.

[ay]

True :) the nice thing with 108 is that it is supposed to be “seamless” - that is, you will see (by the absence of leases) that “it’s finally time” to remove it. And the legacy old devices will still continue to work till then.

[idatum]

I resigned myself to the fact that IoT crappy devices will always exist and I isolated these to their own VLAN with IPv4-only (maybe I'll go dual-stack at some point).

Yes, VLANs add complexity -- even the obligatory IoT VLAN -- but I generally want to keep these IoT devices isolated anyway.