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.
Perhaps if statefulness were formally accepted as a legitimate topic of
this group we could move away from the 'nat causes (only) harm'
simplifications and discuss protocol specifics. Margaret, can you let
us know if that is feasible?
If not, and anyone has experience setting up ietf mailing lists and would
like to help create one for stateful NAT66 (NAT6 or whatever it should be
called), please contact me off-list.
Which brings up an interesting question. If NAT66 refers to only
stateless NAT should stateful NAT be part of the same spec (as indicated
by the NAT66 name) or should both be named something more descriptive?
Roger Marquis
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
