On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:58 AM, Chris Engel wrote: > Not to mention the fact that if some-one were attempting to create > applications/protocols which worked across a NAT boundary, having a > consistent base of expected behavior for NAT implementations would be quite > important, I would think.
I certainly can't argue with that. But if we're trying to define consistent behavior for NAT implementations for the benefit of applications/protocols, the scope would have to be a lot wider than NAT66. > Even where systems don't need to interoperate, standards are useful as a sort > of "best practices" document. What about "least harmful bad practices"? That seems to be what's called for here. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
