On 15 feb 2008, at 16:09, <michael.dillon@xxxxxx> wrote: > Vendors need to agree on the timeout for mappings and on the > method for substituting prefixes. Even if ignoring port translation > seems obvious, a vendor who is adapting/upgrading old code might > include this in the absence of a standard. With 1-to-1 address translation without the port overloading the mappings can be static so there is no need for timeouts. And incoming connections can be translated just as easily as outgoing connections. One wonders whether the pro-NAT crowd would actually like something as open as that. Then again, emulating IPv4 NAT behavior just because it's the devil we know even though it would require a significant effort to create IPv6 versions of ALGs and then it would still get in the way of legitimate applications a whole lot isn't all that attractive, either. _______________________________________________ Ietf@xxxxxxxx http://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf