* GangChen <[email protected]> > 2015-09-25 4:15 GMT+08:00, Alberto Leiva <[email protected]>: > > "Stateless NAT64" doesn't exist. Or, at the very least, it isn't > > defined in any standards that I have seen. > > RFC7599 may help. > There are several statements, like "It builds on existing stateless > NAT64 techniques specified in [RFC6145],...", "A stateless NAT64 > function [RFC6145] is extended to allow stateless mapping of IPv4 ..."
Except for the fact that the RFC7599 is making a false claim here: RFC6145 simply *doesn't* specify «stateless NAT64». As it happens, the only occurrence of the string «NAT64» in RFC6145 is in a reference to RFC6146. Any draft could potentially include a sentence such as «blah blah, the Awesome Buttered Bacon Protocol (ABBP) [RFC2460], blah blah». But that doesn't mean that «ABBP» from that point on becomes a officially correct name for the protocol specified in RFC2460, now does it? Tore _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
