As far as I'm concerned, NAT-PT is defined in RFC 2766, and describes a particular way of translating between IPv4 and IPv6. If people are using NAT-PT in a different way, that's unfortunate. But I don't consider it a major problem because NAT-PT really isn't usable anyway, for two sets of reasons: (1) for any kind of NAT approach to be generally applicable, applications need to be explicitly aware of NAT; have explicit awareness of, and control over, bindings in the NAT; and be able to distinguish one addressing realm from another and know which addresses are in which realms. NAT-PT doesn't do the first two, and it's arguable that it doesn't do the third. (2) lying about DNS results, which NAT-PT does, is always a Bad Idea and should be strongly discouraged. If someone wants to define a different mechanism to translate between IPv4 and IPv6, it needs a different name to avoid confusion with NAT-PT. I don't like NAT+PT as a name, because it's too easily confused with NAT-PT. (I don't like DVD-RW and DVD+RW either, but I expect that was a case of deliberately trying to cause confusion in the marketplace.) Keith > NAT, NAPT, and NAT-PT have been used for some while now to refer > to various sorts of address/port translation within an IPv4-only > network. > > Recently, there has been some discussion of network address with > IPv6::IPv4 protocol translation. Some have referred to that as > NAT-PT also, which can be confusing to some. > > I'd like to suggest that when talking about the concept of > translating protocol versions (IPv6 <-> IPv4) in addition > to, or instead of, altering port number or IP address, we > use the short-hand notation "NAT+PT". > > Cheers, > > Ran > > (PS: Perhaps I've been burning too many DVDs lately. :-) > > _______________________________________________ > Ietf mailing list > Ietf@xxxxxxxx > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf