Le 2 nov. 2010 à 17:28, Roger Marquis a écrit : >> 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.
Personally, I don't have this experience, sorry. > 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? Margaret proposed recently to call the NAT of her draft an "algorithmic" NAT66. Although I believe that "stateless NAT66" would have been more intuitive, this works for me. Other NAT66's can be called "stateful" without confusion. Regards, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
