> > With enough IPv6 addresses easily available, and stateful firewalling > > handling the most common security requirements (I believe both of these > > are true) - the need for *stateful* NAT isn't nearly as obvious as the > > need for stateless NAT. > > > > So - while I don't question that *some* users are looking for stateful > > IPv6 NAT, I'm not convinced about the "far greater number of us" part. > > Note that the "far greater number" was for those who want to look at BOTH > stateless and stateful. > > You statement seems to mean that you don't wish even to LOOK at stateful > NAT66's. > Is this the case?
I personally have no need for stateful NAT66, and I believe the authors of the draft-mrw-nat66-nn.txt NAT66 draft have stated that this list ([email protected]) was created to discuss stateless NAT66. I'm fine with stateful NAT66 being discussed on another list. Steinar Haug, Nethelp consulting, [email protected] _______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
