The IESG has approved the following document: - 'IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Prefix Translation' (draft-mrw-nat66-15.txt) as an Experimental RFC This document has been reviewed in the IETF but is not the product of an IETF Working Group. The IESG contact person is Ron Bonica. A URL of this Internet Draft is: http://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-mrw-nat66/ Technical Summary Relevant content can frequently be found in the abstract and/or introduction of the document. If not, this may be an indication that there are deficiencies in the abstract or introduction. Working Group Summary Was there anything in the WG process that is worth noting? For example, was there controversy about particular points or were there decisions where the consensus was particularly rough? Document Quality Are there existing implementations of the protocol? Have a significant number of vendors indicated their plan to implement the specification? Are there any reviewers that merit special mention as having done a thorough review, e.g., one that resulted in important changes or a conclusion that the document had no substantive issues? If there was a MIB Doctor, Media Type, or other Expert Review, what was its course (briefly)? In the case of a Media Type Review, on what date was the request posted? Personnel Who is the Document Shepherd for this document? Who is the Responsible Area Director? If the document requires IANA experts(s), insert 'The IANA Expert(s) for the registries in this document are <TO BE ADDED BY THE AD>.' RFC Editor Note OLD: Note that, for reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not generally recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology. This has several ramifications: NEW: Note that, for reasons discussed in [RFC2993] and Section 5, the IETF does not generally recommend the use of Network Address Translation technology for IPv6. Where Network Address Translation is implemented, however, this specification provides a mechanism that has less architectural problems than merely implementing a traditional IPv4 NAT in an IPv6 environment. Some problems remain, however, and the reader should consult Section 5, [RFC4864], and [RFC5902], for the implications and approaches that help avoid all types of NATs. The stateless approach described in this document has several ramifications: _______________________________________________ IETF-Announce mailing list IETF-Announce@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf-announce
