Rémi Després wrote:
Could we make sure the discussion only concerns IPv6 NATs.
In IPv4, NATs are here for understandable reasons.
Arguments to defend IPv4 NATs, or NATs in general, are IMHO aout of scope here.
Actually, per Margeret's last post, stateful NAT is out of scope as well.
That works for me, or at least it would in absence of existing threads
discussing statefulness.
Perhaps the core problem is that there is no discussion group for
stateful IPv6 NAT?
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
