wanted to get my two cents in on a couple topic brought up on this
thread as well as the "case for SAT66..."
1. while it may be too late to clear up all the confusion, it would be
useful to have generic terms for the various types of translators, and
more specific names for specific solution proposals based on
distinguishing characteristics. NAT66 sounds like a generic name to me;
the name should reflect some specifics of the proposal.
2. I agree with the characterization of "stateless" to mean no
connection-specific state; configuration and setup do not constitute
"state" in this sense. The tension at the BOF indicates a lack of
consensus on this definition. That should be clarified too.
3. I agree that Margaret's proposal could be called "stateless" address
translation, or stateless prefix translation, something more specific
and descriptive than NAT66. Assuming that there may be other competing
solutions to NAT for IPv6 (with different characteristics.)
Constructively, this discussion can go on for a few more days to "let
1000 flowers bloom" regarding what to call everything, but at some point
the chairs should call "time", collect the proposals, and figure out a
way to make a firm decision on naming conventions. We probably need (in
some cases already have) generic names for address translation
(IPv4-only, IPv6-only) and IPv4-IPv6 protocol translation, and may need
to rename some specific proposals to disambiguate. There is a lot of
overlap between this BOF, 6man, v6ops, softwire and behave - so all
those groups would have to buy in to the naming convention or it won't
mean anything. The main question: is this important enough to spend
more intellectual capacity, or should we focus on documenting the real
problems and potential solutions and let the naming take care of itself?
On 4/3/2009 11:56 AM, Fred Baker wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:00 AM, Robert Moskowitz wrote:
But aren't 6-6 and 4-6 special gateway cases that have to do special
things anyway and calling them NATs, while technically correct, masks
their larger role? They are REALLY needed in the 4/6 transition
scheme of things.
While Marcello's proposal is called NAT46, it is not actually a
network address translator. It is an Internet Protocol Translator.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
--
Ed Jankiewicz - SRI International
Fort Monmouth Branch Office - IPv6 Research
Supporting DISA Standards Engineering Branch
732-389-1003 or [email protected]
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
