Hallam-Baker, Phillip wrote:
NAT-PT is not NAT. It does a whole lot more, but it *cannot* do what it
claims to do completely, because the semantics on the two sides are
different, unlike NAT. Dual stack is a better way forwards for the
If you read carefully the draft suggests that there may be scenarios in
which a modified form of NAT-PT might be useful, so it is hardly extreme
The core assumption here seems to be that NAT is a bad thing so lets get rid of
NAT rather than trying to make NAT work.
Because whether the packets pass through a NAT-PT or otherwise affects
what the application might expect from the network.
3) Exactly why should an application be invited to care about this issue?
NAT does, for better or for worse, solve some real problems.
NAT-PT makes new problems: Not good news for a transition mechanism and
it militates against future improvements to IPv6.
Ietf mailing list