On 4/4/2012 7:32 PM, Noel Chiappa wrote:
> From: Steven Bellovin<smb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> NAT didn't really exist when the basic shape of v6 was selected.
I didn't use the term "IPv6" deliberately, and I'm not going to get into a
(pointless) debate about it now. However, I want to set the historical
record straight on this specific point, for any future historian who reads
this.
I first heard the idea of NAT at an IAB architectural retreat in California
(ISI maybe), quite a while before SIP (later IPv6) was proposed. I'm not sure
exactly when that meeting was, but I think it was the meeting referred to in
RFC-1287, which would make it January/June 1991 (not sure which one was the
one where I recall Van making his L-NAT presentation - and I'm pretty sure
Paul T had another variant of NAT, S-NAT, to discuss at the same meeting). You
will find (brief) reference to their work in that RFC (published December
1991).
Noel,
This sounds about right.
Perhaps it is a stretch, but I think that that NAT concept owes much to
Postel's
"Magic Box" ("Multi-LAN Address Resolution", RFC 925, October 1984,
a much under-appreciated RFC.)
Bob Braden