Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

[Christian Vogt <[e-mail]>]

> I will get back to your original comments in the next msg, but I feel
> the need to first correct potentially a very big error in the above:
> would you please kindly point to the exact text in draft-iab-ipv6- 
> nat-00
> that either stated or implied "end-to-end *locator* transparency", as
> you attributed to the draft?

Hi Lixia -

I used the term "locator transparency" to distinguish this from other
types of transparency, such as data transparency or, in a world with
identifier-locator separation, identifier transparency.  I found this
useful given that I was talking about identifier-locator separation.

Consequently, "locator transparency" in my posts has the meaning of "IP
address transparency", i.e., the type of transparency that NATs break.
Since your document is about NAT, I am assuming that this is also the
type of transparency that you are referring to in your document.

- Christian