On Oct 29, 2010, at 16:37, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > I didn't read this before posting my previous message... Would "Algorithmic > NAT66" address your concern? Because I do think that is the main way in > which this is different form regular old NAPT44, or an IPv6 equivalent. > > What do you think?
Sure, and I agree with you. My main concern is that I think we need a term that conveys the kind of IPv6/NAT that Mr. Engel and Mr. Marquis et al. are demanding, apart from the one described in the I-D.mrw-nat66 draft, and it seems like NAT66 is quickly coming to be used widely for that purpose. One imagines that "algorithmic NAT66" will get shortened down to ALGO-NAT66 or something like that. I'm also okay if ALGO-NAT66 is regarded as a strict subset of NAT66. -- james woodyatt <[email protected]> member of technical staff, communications engineering _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
