Le 1 nov. 2010 à 17:57, Roger Marquis a écrit : > 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.
The draft says: "NAT66 provides a simple and "compelling" solution to meet the Address Independence requirement in IPv6" This statement is obviously false if NAT66 is understood to be only stateless. Explaining that stateful NAT66 is an alternative is IMHO legitimate ON THIS LIST as long as this statement is part of the proposed NAT66 specification. It hasn't been negated so far. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
