This is a contribution to the debate on which NATs may be useful in
IPv6, how simplified they can be, and how to name them.
1. IF we want to support _IPv6-only hosts in sites having only private
IPv6 local addressing, we DO NEED some _address modification in CPEs_.
(Whether this support could be limited to common applications that don't
need ALGs like the Web, e-mail and the DNS can remain an open question
here.)
2. In IPv6, we know this modification CAN BE limited to a stateless
prefix substitution.
3. We then NEED a name for such a degenerate NAT.
Expecting that IETF can force people to use the name NAT66 only for such
a degenerate NAT is unrealistic because stateful NAT66s will obviously
also exist:
- Deriving a stateful NAT66 from a NAT44 is almost trivial.
- Some say it has already been done
- Using stateful NAT66 for address amplification is advocated as useful
in specific cases.
It has been suggested in the past that purposely avoiding to name
stateless IPv6 NATs might be judicious for some tactical or marketing
reasons. But maintaining confusion is NOT what is expected from IETF.
5. I therefore propose that the stateless IPv6 NAT be named _SAT66_
(IPv6 to IPv6 Stateless Address Translation).
- Like NAT, SAT is easy to pronounce and has the same number of letters
for easy substitution in pictures an documents.
- The essential characteristic of being stateless is expressed in the name.
I would really hope that those who share this understanding support that
we clarify what we talk about.
Regards,
RD
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
