Le 30 oct. 2010 à 01:36, Margaret Wasserman a écrit : > > I have objected to the prefix/locator translation name because some versions > of the document, including the current one, also modify the identifier/IID > portion of the address. > > I think the important distinction here that Remi wants to make (if I > understand correctly) is not in what part of the address is translated, but > in the fact that this translation is algorithmic and reversable and does not > require any sort of per-flow state. The devices is _not_ stateless, however, > because as others have pointed out there is configured state. > > So, if it is felt we need a special qualifier in the title of the document to > distinguish this from other types of NAT, I could go for "Algorithmic > NAT66"... Would that address the concerns that you and Remi have about > calling it simply "NAT66"?
Calling it algorithmic NAT66, does address my concern. Others may continue to use sateless as a synonymous, but this makes clear that: - some points concern all NAT66's, - some only algorithmic NAT66, - some only stateful NAT66. Thanks, RD _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
