On 2009-03-10 23:13, Mark Townsley wrote:
> Rémi Després wrote:
>> Hi Fred,
>>
>> Comment and support below.
>>
>> Fred Baker - le (m/j/a) 3/9/09 11:28 PM:
>>> One suggestion I would make came out of a private discussion on the
>>> politics of the discussion. "Network Address Translation" is a pretty
>>> good description of the behavior of IPv4 NATs and their attendant
>>> issues detailed in RFC 4864. This is in fact a "Network Prefix
>>> Translation" draft; changing the name of the functionality might help
>>> have a more illuminating and less heated discussion.
>>>
>> I like this proposal.
>> With it, a NAT which is not a NAPT has finally got a name: it is a NPT.
> Except that now we have to fight with NAPT, NPT, and NAT-PT in the
> industry - which are all very different things, with very similar names.
Yes. I remind people that we wanted to title RFC4864 "NAP" (network
architecture protection) and were persuaded to drop that due to the
confusion effect. Also, I think calling it NAT66 is a preemptive strike
against anyone trying to sell a NAPT for IPv6. We can certainly make it
clear in the text that it's prefix translation.
But of course prefix translation doesn't provide the "benefit"
described in RFC4864 section 2.4.
Brian
>
> - Mark
>> IMHO, this should help clarify the discussion.
>>
>> NPT66 is a useful concept.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> RD
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> nat66 mailing list
>> [email protected]
>> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> nat66 mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
>
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
