Re: terminology proposal: NAT+PT (or NAT64 ?)

Keith Moore wrote :
> you're essentially making the assumption that all apps are
> client-server - i.e. that the session is always initiated in one
> direction across the NAT box.  that's one of the biggest problems
> with traditional NATs, and is part of what makes NAT-PT broken.
I don't understand this point.`
"Traditional NATs" (NAT44, I would say) do provide real service.
Thanks to them,  private address spaces in private sites became realistic, and the IPv4 address shortage has been pushed far enough in the future.
> ...  it shouldn't be assumed that there's any direct relationship
> between the interior and exterior addresses across a v6<>v4
> translator.
I don't see why, as far as the session acceptor is concerned.
Using an IPv4 mapped addresses as destination address when an IPv6-onlyhost transmits to an Ipv4-only host does make sense.
>should it be assumed that such a
> box can provide transparent IPv4-to-IPv6 conversion for arbitrary
> applications on a large number of hosts without the knowledge of the
> applications on those hosts.
In my undersatnding, neither of us assumes it.
>>... a unique design for NAT64 and NAT46, I don't see this
>> as feasible.
> I think it's feasible because in the process of trying to describe
> such a protocol.  Perhaps you would do me the favor of waiting until
> I produce such a description before you denounce it as overly complex
> and unnecessary?
I expressed my "current" belief, and made it clear that it was an "opinion", not a proved assertion.
When you bring new facts, they will be for sure taken into account.
And I look forward to it.
> Well, if someone says "NAT-XY is good" (or bad) and NAT-XY means
> different things to different people, that's fairly confusing.
On this point, we thoroughly agree.
And this is THE reason why I prefer Alain's terminology.

As a matter of fact, I like your choice of "NAT-XY" to describe the general mechanism you are working on (if I got it right).
This IMHO shows the expressive power of generalizing Alain's approach, introducing a dash, as you did, to separate IP versions identifications from "NAT".
What about NAT-XX, NAT-XY, NAT-44, NAT-64, NAT-46  ?
I would be very happy if this debate, introduced by Ran Atkinson, would end up with such a step against confusion.

Cheers.

Rémi

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf