me wrote: > we are talking about NAT64 (IPv6-only datacenter's path to a legacy > world), > and NPT66 (prefix transalation). I doubt anyone had a traditional NAT > in mind. Kevin Oberman wrote: > No, all of the messages in the thread are specific about NAT66, not > NPT66. > NPT66 may have real value. I hate it, but it may well be better than > alternatives. [...] Cy Schubert wrote: > That I don't disagree with, IPv6 NAT makes no logical sense. Having > said > that I've received emails asking about NAT66 specifically. It is on > people's minds. My impression is that often the term NAT66 is used indiscriminately, even when NPT66 (static prefix translation) is meant. MarkReceived on Tue Jul 29 2014 - 12:48:12 UTC
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:40:51 UTC