Fred Baker wrote: > > On Apr 3, 2009, at 7:45 AM, Keith Moore wrote: > >> I think it's useful to be able to describe not just IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT, >> but any kind of NAT between IPvx and IPvy. Since there's already some >> established use for NAT66 and some other examples of that pattern, I >> suggest we use the pattern xyNAT for NATs between x and y. > > Yes. But the problem is that NAT46 and NAT44 are also specific > proposals, and NAT66 actually *is* a specific proposal. I'm with you on > wanting a generic name, but trying to coopt the names of specific > proposals as generic names just confuses things.
That's why I'm proposing to use xyNAT - to _distinguish_ the generic name from specific proposals which have names of the form NATxy. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
