> or SCTP? There's no business case for allowing those apps or protocols > to establish stateless inbound connections anywhere in my network.
The NAT66 (possibly) specified by IETF is likely end up going to be deployed also elsewhere than just in lets-restrict-everything corporate networks. Even if it would be just fine for apps to fail in your network, it would be good if said apps would work fine in those networks that deploy NAT66 for some other reasons than traffic restrictions. Maybe someone chooses to use NAT66 to translate uplink's /64 to ULA prefix in local LAN. Hence base specification for NAT66 should be as application friendly as possible. Best regards, Teemu _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
