Excerpts from Rémi Després on Wed, Apr 01, 2009 04:23:04PM +0200: >> 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. > > This is the kind of confusing situation I wish to help avoiding: "it > is stateless... but not stateless the way you thought". > > How would we expect people to understand this outside a small > initiated circle?
By avoiding 'stateless'. What Margaret said. NAT as traditionally conceived has per-host (and maybe per-session) state. NAT66 has per-prefix state. I think it would be fine if you found a good name that reflected that, but did not make any claims of being state-free. Scott _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
