Subject: Re: [nat66] naming issues

From: Darrel Lewis <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 1 Nov 2010 10:20:49 -0700

On Oct 30, 2010, at 1:23 PM, Margaret Wasserman wrote:

> 
> Hi Christian,
> 
> On Oct 29, 2010, at 8:13 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
>> The current proposal is interesting precisely because it is a subset of the entire universe of NAT66: it is stateless, and it does not include port mapping. At some level, if you hold your nose long enough, it feels like some kind of tunnel.
> 
> Exactly, it is more like a tunnel that avoids MTU/fragmentation issues than a NAT.

Well, no, since you lose information about the real source of the packet in both the middle and the other end....  So really it's more like a 1:1 one Layer3 NAT than anything else, because thats what it is.

-D