Margaret Wasserman - le (m/j/a) 4/1/09 8:52 PM:
On Apr 1, 2009, at 11:57 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
That said, I think Remi has made a good suggestion here. Calling it
Stateless Address Translation makes sense, I think.
I do believe it will help if we can make such a change as early as
possible.
You believe that changing the name will help _what_?
As I said, it would help avoiding to create and maintain confusion (it
was not a fools' day joke).
(There are and there will be NAT66s that are just NAT44s trivially
augmented to support IPv6 addresses in their mapping tables. Expecting
that they no longer would be authorized to be called NAT66, in full
consistency with NAT44, NAT64, and NAT46, is completely unrealistic.)
At this point, we have made a proposal to the IETF for an IPv6-to-IPv6
NAT, and we've called it NAT66. If an IETF WG takes on this proposal
and has consensus to change its name, that's totally fine with me.
If I get it right, you consider the word NAT66 has been preempted, and
should be used only your particular proposal.
I don't think it would not be wise to agree.
BTW, note that before draft-mrw-behave-nat66-00 was even posted the
word NAT66 was used in a mail of Dan Wing, in which he said "NAT66 is
still a third rail. I don't want to go there".
Perhaps it would be better to focus this discussion on the technical
aspects of this proposal, instead of focusing on its name?
Well, unless some others which to pursue now (choosing early a good
enough terminology is also important in practice), I will leave the
subject for the time being.
I will now keep using NAT66 as a generic term for IPv6-to-IPv6, and
refer to your design as _MW-NAT66_, hoping that others might do the same
to avoid a disturbing ambiguity.
Regards,
RD
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
