Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I will get back to your original comments in the next msg, but I feel
the need to first correct potentially a very big error in the above:
would you please kindly point to the exact text in draft-iab-ipv6- nat-00
that either stated or implied "end-to-end *locator* transparency", as
you attributed to the draft?

Hi Lixia -

I used the term "locator transparency" to distinguish this from other
types of transparency, such as data transparency or, in a world with
identifier-locator separation, identifier transparency.  I found this
useful given that I was talking about identifier-locator separation.

Consequently, "locator transparency" in my posts has the meaning of "IP
address transparency", i.e., the type of transparency that NATs break.
Since your document is about NAT, I am assuming that this is also the
type of transparency that you are referring to in your document.

- Christian


_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]