> I'm also okay if ALGO-NAT66 is regarded as a strict subset of NAT66. The current proposal is interesting precisely because it is a subset of the entire universe of NAT66: it is stateless, and it does not include port mapping. At some level, if you hold your nose long enough, it feels like some kind of tunnel.
I wish it could be an antidote against more complex forms of translation. For that, I wonder whether we should include some form of topology hiding in the solution, or at least topology obfuscation. I know that it can be done, e.g. using some form of encryption of the EID during translation, with the effect of obfuscating the subnet mapping. Of course, if we did include topology obfuscation, we would lose the simple "prefix mapping" property. So we would probably leave that as an option. -- Christian Huitema _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
