On Apr 3, 2009, at 1:32 PM, Keith Moore wrote:
That's why I'm proposing to use xyNAT - to _distinguish_ the generic
name from specific proposals which have names of the form NATxy.
There is a fundamental issue there, though.
IPv4/IPv4 is network address translation - stateful, per flow
IPv4/IPv6 is network protocol translation, and has both stateless and
stateful modes with different operational and service characteristics.
IPv6/IPv6 could be IPv4/IPv4 redux, but at least the NAT66 proposal is
not that. It is network *prefix* translation, and is stateless. It, by
virtue of doing the TCP/UDP checksum update in the IPv6 address,
enables IPsec ESP sessions (AH won't work, and apart from that
encrypted sessions don't work with ESP, and even unencrypted sessions
are a PITA due to the antics required to find the TCP header).
So, please, I really don't want people using one acronym that by
accident has the right first letters to dump all of these in one box.
They are not the same, and the use of the same acronym makes it easy
for us to unconsciously lump them all in the same bucket
Since I haven't come up with good acronyms (I can do SAT for the NAT66
flavor, but Margaret doesn't like it), I have taken the approach of:
- I call anything with per-flow dynamic state a NAT
- I call IPv4/IPv6 protocol translation "IPv4/IPv6 protocol
translation"
- I call NAT66 "NT66"
- I call more generic IPv6/IPv6 prefix translation "IPv6/IPv6
prefix translation"
Until someone comes up with a less confusing approach, I would suggest
we likewise be clear in our comments.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
