> From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpen...@gmail.com>
> Can you define "NAT66" precisely?
ROTFLMAO! That's sort of like asking 'Can you define "NAT44" precisely?'!
Going on the principle that a name ought to be reasonably related to the
thing it names (always a bad assumption, I know :-), I think all we can tell
from a name like 'NAT66' is that it translates from IPv6 addreses to IPv6
addresses.
Or, at least, we ought to set that as a principle... and we should also not,
I feel, favour a particular flavour of what I have called NAT66 with the
unique ownership of the term 'NAT66'.
Probably we need/could use a taxonomy of names like NAT66-<foo> and
NAT66-<bar> to describe the various variants of NAT66.
Noel
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
