On Nov 1, 2010, at 1:11 PM, Roger Marquis wrote: >> Some people say that NAT66 (as defined in the NAT66 document) will address >> their needs for NAT in IPv6. They want to use NAT in IPv6 for address >> independence, and they do not desire the other features/side effects of NAPT > > "Some people" sure. A far greater number of us, however, are looking for > stateful NAT as well. Question is, why are a relatively small number of > stateless NAT (66) proponents being catered to while the majority is > ignored?
This list was set up to discuss a specific proposal for stateless NAT between IPv6 and IPv6. In general, the reason the scope of a list is kept narrow is to discourage people from wasting the list's time by bringing up irrelevant details or insisting that the list discuss ideas or features that aren't in scope for the proposal. If you want a list to discuss stateful IPv6 NAT, start one yourself rather than whining about why others don't do it for you. But don't expect other people to contribute effort toward defining facilities that they're not interested in. For that matter, don't expect to actually get your work approved by IETF unless you're willing to work toward getting community consensus for it - which at a bare minimum will mean that you have to have a good solution to the multitude of problems known to be caused by NAT in IPv4. Keith _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
