Fred Baker writes:
On Feb 28, 2007, at 8:02 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so lets get
rid of NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
...
Actually this has already been done, please see draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-06.txt
which has been approved as an informational RFC (currently in the RFC
editor's hands) for explanations as to why there is no NAT in IPv6. All we
have is NAT-PT which is supposed to be an interconnection between IPv4 and
IPv6 networks. And as the draft-ietf-v6ops-natpt-to-historic is proposing to
do away with this last incident of the NAT abbreviation, even may be going
away.
The basic requirement for true end-to-end connectivity makes NAT in any form
worth reconsidering.
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf