Fred Baker allegedly wrote on 10/29/2010 19:07 EDT: > On Oct 29, 2010, at 3:53 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: >>> - Some contributors advocate that "NAT66" should only designate >>> *stateless NAT66*. >> >> You are the only person I have heard make that statement. If >> others hold this opinion, they should share it with me. > > I do. The draft in question is draft-mrw-nat66-nn.txt, and it > describes a stateless NAT. > > Why do I want that limitation? First, because that is the discussion > this list was created to have.
Agree completely with this. "NAT66" was originally bound to a stateless approach and that binding should hold precedence unless overwhelmed by what latecomers say. > There is an alternative. We can create a different list for > discussion of stateless network prefix translation, named > > [email protected] > > and abandon this one to "abandon hope all ye who enter here". If we > do, I will sign off this list. Except that's what we thought we were > building here. I suppose <groan>. Alternatively keep the name the same but fix the list description, currently The purpose of this list is to discuss the needs that may drive the adoption of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT, and to discuss solutions to meet those needs, possibly including specification of an IPv6 NAT mechanism, that will work better and be less harmful to the Internet than direct ports of IPv4 NA(P)T functionality. , so that new subscribers know exactly what it is about. Margaret Wasserman allegedly wrote on 10/29/2010 19:36 EDT: > The devices is _not_ > stateless, however, because as others have pointed out there is > configured state. That's just a quibble about the use of "state", and not directly related to the essential nature of the behavior. That's a different kind of state, in that it is not associated with individual endpoints or flows. > So, if it is felt we need a special qualifier in the title of the > document to distinguish this from other types of NAT, I could go for > "Algorithmic NAT66"... Would that address the concerns that you and Remi > have about calling it simply "NAT66"? I could tolerate "algorithmic", since it could mean lots of things so people will have to ask. Be careful of being abbreviated ANAT. Scott _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
