On Wednesday 01 April 2009 16:16:45 ext Rémi Després wrote: > 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.
Sorry. You're simply too late. Stateless NAT already exists, in IPv4 world, today and the terminology is already used. Those are particular efficient and seducive for 1:1 port forwarding for instance. "NAT" does not mean that it's stateful or stateless. It means it's doing translation. Using a separate word for stateless IPv6-IPv6 NAT will just add to the confusion at this point. -- Rémi Denis-Courmont Nokia Devices R&D, Maemo Software, Helsinki _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
