On Nov 2, 2010, at 9:28 AM, Roger Marquis wrote: > 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?
Several people have now said that they found the draft moniker draft-mrw-nat66 confusing, that they thought it was unnecessary to read the draft to find out what it was talking about but simply presumed that they could comment on stateful NATs as part of the topic to the exclusion of reading or commenting on the draft on the table. Margaret and I will talk next week about what to change the draft moniker to, to facilitate discussion of prefix translation. We will then set up some other discussion form in which we can have a productive discussion of stateless/algorithmic/whatever network prefix translation, and move the conversation there. If this group is adamant that it wants to discuss stateful NAT for IPv6, please feel free to continue failing to listen to each other, making broad assertions without supporting content, and telling each other that each other are idiots. Please respect the movement of the forum for productive discussion of something that isn't per-session-stateful. _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
