[Bp_ipv6] Request for clarification NAT v NAT
alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com
Thu Nov 26 13:24:37 EST 2015
The text that you highlighted in yellow makes totally sense.
The case with the concept/function of NAT is that there are many
different types of NAT + ways to implement it.
In summary (copying & pasting previous Carlos Martinez's email):
NAT44 is not a transition technology, in the
sense that deploying a CGN for translating IPv4 to IPv4 addresses will
not get you one inch closer to deploying IPv6.
However, NAT64 (a box that translates ipv6 packets into ipv4 packets) IS
a transition technology."
But I think that if you have any concern with the current text we
should try to add probably one more paragraph trying to make it clear.
What does the rest of the group think?
El 11/26/2015 a las 11:34 AM, Susan Chalmers escribió:
> Thanks Alejandro.
> IPv4 and IPv6 are two different protocols. IPv6 is not backwards
> compatible with IPv4. Devices that communicate using only IPv6 cannot
> communicate with devices that communicate using only IPv4. For an
> IPv4-only endpoint to interwork with an IPv6-only service, and
> vice-versa, translation between IPv4 and IPv6 is required.Network
> Address Translation, described above, not only permits multiple
> devices to share one IP address, but it also plays an important role
> in deploying IPv6 in conjunction with IPv4 and allows IPv4 and IPv6 to
> interwork.This translation is also referred to as Address Family
> Translation (AFT).
> These are two different purposes to the layperson - saving space and
> internetworking. Perhaps I'm being too specific for my own good?
> I am moving to another State (well, a District, actually) today, so
> will be offline, but can come back online during the weekend to wrap
> things up.
> Thanks again everyone for your contributions. I think the document is
> shaping up quite nicely.
> Susan Chalmers
> susan at chalmers.associates
> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
> On Thu, Nov 26, 2015 at 10:28 AM, Alejandro Acosta
> <alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com
> <mailto:alejandroacostaalamo at gmail.com>> wrote:
> Hi Susan,
> Is there any part of the document that particularly worries you?
> I just took a quick look to the document in the review platform
> and for me the explanation looks quite good.
> But anyhow this is very difficult topic to summarize in few
> words and unfortunately I presume few people will complain with
> whatever definition we use.
> From my point of view the definition & function found in
> Wikipedia is great: "Network address translation (NAT) is a
> methodology of remapping one IP address space into another by
> modifying network address information in Internet Protocol (IP)
> datagram packet headers while they are in transit across a traffic
> routing device"
> El 11/26/2015 a las 10:43 AM, Susan Chalmers escribió:
>> Hello colleagues,
>> During the discussion, the function of NAT was originally
>> described as the address space saving kind, and so this was how
>> NAT was treated in the paper. Through comments made on the review
>> platform, other functions of NAT were described - more or less
>> enabling translation and thus necessary and helping the transition.
>> I want to be sure that the differences here are clear to the
>> reader. Could someone help shed a bit of light at a high level?
>> Susan Chalmers
>> susan at chalmers.associates <mailto:susan at chalmers.associates>
>> *CHALMERS* & ASSOCIATES
>> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
>> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org <mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org <mailto:Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Bp_ipv6