IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft

EricLKlein@softhome.net Sun, 09 November 2008 06:39 UTC

Return-Path: <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E10603A68E5 for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 22:39:12 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.738
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.738 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.601, BAYES_00=-2.599, FH_RELAY_NODNS=1.451, HELO_MISMATCH_NET=0.611, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, RDNS_NONE=0.1]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id U6gY85rz+qTg for <ietfarch-v6ops-archive@core3.amsl.com>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 22:39:12 -0800 (PST)
Received: from psg.com (psg.com [IPv6:2001:418:1::62]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 105233A63EC for <v6ops-archive@lists.ietf.org>; Sat, 8 Nov 2008 22:39:11 -0800 (PST)
Received: from majordom by psg.com with local (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org>) id 1Kz3qo-0004sp-ES for v6ops-data@psg.com; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:32:46 +0000
Received: from [66.54.152.27] (helo=jive.SoftHome.net) by psg.com with smtp (Exim 4.69 (FreeBSD)) (envelope-from <EricLKlein@softhome.net>) id 1Kz3qk-0004sJ-17 for v6ops@ops.ietf.org; Sun, 09 Nov 2008 06:32:43 +0000
Received: (qmail 3815 invoked by uid 417); 9 Nov 2008 06:31:48 -0000
Received: from mambo- (HELO softhome.net) (172.16.2.15) by shunt-smtp-out-0 with SMTP; 9 Nov 2008 06:31:48 -0000
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) (uid 417) by softhome.net with local; Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:48 -0700
References: <4911B9E7.8090108@free.fr> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014762B5@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <courier.4912CE09.00003CB8@softhome.net> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765AF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <6BB0BB30-7AA4-4821-B9EB-4703794F3C87@muada.com> <BB56240F3A190F469C52A57138047A03014765DF@xmb-rtp-211.amer.cisco.com> <4913528C.2000207@gmail.com> <courier.491487AB.000043EE@softhome.net> <4915C73D.4050103@free.fr>
In-Reply-To: <4915C73D.4050103@free.fr>
From: EricLKlein@softhome.net
To: Rémi Després <remi.despres@free.fr>
Cc: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>, Margaret Wasserman <mrw@lilacglade.org>, v6ops@ops.ietf.org, "Wes Beebee (wbeebee)" <wbeebee@cisco.com>, Behave WG <behave@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Comments on the NAT66 draft
Date: Sat, 08 Nov 2008 23:31:47 -0700
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; format="flowed"; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Sender: EricLKlein@softhome.net
X-Originating-IP: [62.219.175.130]
Message-ID: <courier.491683D4.000028A3@softhome.net>
Sender: owner-v6ops@ops.ietf.org
Precedence: bulk
List-ID: <v6ops.ops.ietf.org>

Rémi Després writes: 

> EricLKlein@softhome.net   (1-12/1-31/200x) 11/7/08 7:23 PM:
>> I agree with Brian, MAT would work as it breaks from the NAT mentality 
>> and may be more manageable in the future.
> About the choice of an acronym that differs from NAT:
> - MAT (mapped address translation) does not suggest that no (non 
> reversible) translation is applied. It also suggests that mapping and 
> translation can be simultaneous, rather than having  distinct properties.
> - SAM66 (stateless address mapping), which I like,  may be problematic 
> because of all the new technical contents that goes with SAM. 
> 
> ==> What about, at least for the time being, NAM66 (network address 
> mapping), or NAC66 (network address conversion).

I can live with anything that is not NAT.

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email