Hi Remi,
On Apr 1, 2009, at 9:16 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
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.
I think we have some disagreement about the meaning/scope of the term
"NAT66".
In my experience, the terms NAT44, NAT64, NAT46 and NAT66 are the
_names_ of specific IETF proposals. The terms IPv4 NAT and IPv6 NAT
are used to generically identify IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT devices and IPv6-to-
IPv6 NAT devices, respectively.
If you enter "NAT66" in Google, you will get many hits. The first two
pages of hits refer to the IETF NAT66 proposal. By page 3 or 4, you
will start to get other hits for NAT66, none of which refers to a
Network Address Translator at all.
If you enter "IPv6 NAT" in Google, you get many hits referring to
devices that perform network address translation in IPv6, most of
which are not related to the NAT66 proposal.
So, I believe there is a good case for my position that generic IPv6-
to-IPv6 NAT devices are called "IPv6 NATs", and that "NAT66" is a
specific IETF proposal for how an IPv6 NAT could/should work.
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).
One problem with this name is that a NAT66 device is _not_ stateless.
It requires configured/static state to function -- at least the two
prefixes between which it is translating. When I say that the
mapping is stateless, I mean that the mapping mechanism does not
create or require dynamic (per-host, per-connection, etc.) state.
I also feel quite strongly that if we are going to define a type of
IPv6 NAT, we should be clear (with ourselves and others) that that's
what we're doing.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
