Subject: [nat66] general NAT issue

From: jefsey <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 02 Nov 2010 20:51:17 +0100

Margaret and Fred's target was limited and clear. The debate shown 
that the environment of the target was not. We need to clearly 
understand and document why, in order to correctly position the 
document and the concepts under dicussion within the Internet architecture.

Margaret/Remi's agreement over "algorithmic NAT66", different 
disputes over NAT44, NAT66, stateless/statefull, apparent 
contradiction with ICANN's statements etc. leads to think that either 
there is a taxonomy problem (there are different NAT species and a 
name for each species is to be used) or there is a generic NAT 
species with different brands. IMHO this should be addressed in 
introduction in order to position the specificities or the specie 
that are documented.

If there is only one NAT specie with different occurences there is a 
need for a NAT framework document, listing them, the mailing lists 
where they are discussed, the RFC/Drafts that document them and the 
WG where they can discuss and document what they have in common. The 
question NAT or NATs extends to IPv4 and IPv6. As a user I would 
also  need a document discussing the relations with DHCP and DNS, and 
with equivalent sections in the RFC/I_D documenting each occurence.

jfc