On 2012-04-05 16:41, Bob Braden wrote:
> 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.)
Isn't that closer to Proxy ARP? RFC 1027 credits RFC 925.
At CERN, we used an unpublished ad hoc NAT mechanism in about 1980
to interconnnect two copies of a homebrew network with absurdly
small addresses. The DECnet Phase IV 'hidden areas' mechanism was
also a widely used NAT-like hack in the 1980s.
Brian