On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote: > > Hi Christian, > > On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Christian Huitema wrote: >> The current proposal is interesting precisely because it is a subset of the >> entire universe of NAT66: it is stateless, and it does not include port >> mapping. At some level, if you hold your nose long enough, it feels like >> some kind of tunnel. > > Exactly, it is more like a tunnel that avoids MTU/fragmentation issues than a > NAT.
Well, no, since you lose information about the real source of the packet in both the middle and the other end.... So really it's more like a 1:1 one Layer3 NAT than anything else, because thats what it is. -D _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
