[Bp_ipv6] Request for clarification NAT v NAT
marcoh at ripe.net
Mon Nov 30 20:23:27 EST 2015
> On 30 Nov 2015, at 19:46, Alejandro Acosta wrote:
>> I fully agree with Patrik (and of course with Marco who supports Patrik's comment). I believe we should mention the impact of NAT64 in DNSSEC.
>> My only concern is that we will always be missing something..., I mean, to satisfy everyone's point of view regarding NAT (concepts, functioning, etc) will be almost impossible.
> Sure! Any alternative text that do explain that "NAT within a protocol is ugly but easy, NAT between protocols is more complicated" is fine with me. :-) Even if it is "catch all".
As we set out to write a non-technical document, I would not go much further into detail. Also please realise that we are passed deadlines, prefer not to open text any further.
Maybe we can include a footnote with a reference to a more in-depth technical document that explains the finer details, anybody got a pointer? Or if not possible to add to the text, maybe we can ask the secretariat to add it to the list of supporting documents already on the website.
More information about the Bp_ipv6