Le 2 nov. 2010 à 11:39, [email protected] a écrit : > I personally have no need for stateful NAT66,
Fair enough, if you a customer, that's your choice. > and I believe the authors > of the draft-mrw-nat66-nn.txt NAT66 draft have stated that this list > ([email protected]) was created to discuss stateless NAT66. They did indeed. But, as I alredy noted, their draft still has: "NAT66 provides a simple and compelling solution to meet the Address Independence requirement in IPv6". If NAT66 is taken as meaning only "stateless", saying AND COMPELLING negates the possibility of stateful NAT66 as an alternative solution. The fact that this is wrong is a point *about the draft itself*. Once it is clear in the draft that other solutions, e.g. stateful NAT66, may also exist, I am with you. RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
