James,
Recommend rewriting this section as follows: "1) A Best Current Practices (BCP) RFC, which is to be intended for residential gateway manufacturers and other standards bodies that define functional requirements of residential gateways, that describes why NAT66 is neither necessary nor advised, and also references existing and forthcoming RFCs that describe how residential IPv6 gateways with simple security should function."
I didn't like the original wording too much, but perhaps you are taking it to the other extreme. In any case, *if* we create a WG for NAT66, I would very much like to see a document that explains what people should be using for various purposes. When it comes to replicating NAT44's connections-can-only-be-opened-to-outside, it is clear to me at least that firewall functionality is the way to provide that feature. (But I also happen to believe that NAT66 would be useful to document for other reasons.)
Recommend rewriting this section as follows: "2) An Experimental (EXP) RFC that describes an IPv6 Network Address Translation mechanism that provides some address independence at the expense of some of the familiar problems caused by NAT with IPv4. This experimental solution is expected to involve a one-to-one, algorithmic address mapping mechanism with no port mapping. It may or may not include a checksum-neutral mapping algorithm and/or a cryptographic mapping mechanism."
s/some/some but not all/ and I'd be happy with this. Jari _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
