2015-10-07 13:20 GMT+08:00, Tore Anderson <[email protected]>: > * 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?
Completely agree. In another words, RFC2460 may not represent the entire ABBP, but that is first thing people flash in their mind, isn't it? I guess it's similar meaning as for "STATELESS NAT64". There is the term. Best reference serving the concept is RFC6145. that's it. BTW, the statement in this draft is "Stateless NAT is performed in compliance with [RFC6145]." So, that is not saying RFC6145 is complete stateless nat, but the algorithm for stateless processing is referring the RFC6145. BRs Gang > Tore > _______________________________________________ sunset4 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sunset4
