[Bp_ipv6] Request for clarification NAT v NAT

Susan Chalmers susan at chalmers.associates
Mon Nov 30 20:33:56 EST 2015

Hi Marco, all,

Thanks for this conversation. The text is closed - it was closed last
night. Wim is putting in the final touches. I did reference the DNS
resolution / DNSSEC problems.

This was a very helpful conversation. And held constructively - thank you.

We will circulate the final doc asap.

Warm regards,

Susan Chalmers
susan at chalmers.associates


On Mon, Nov 30, 2015 at 8:23 PM, Marco Hogewoning <marcoh at ripe.net> wrote:

> > 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
> >> 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.
> Thanks,
> Marco
> _______________________________________________
> Bp_ipv6 mailing list
> Bp_ipv6 at intgovforum.org
> http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://intgovforum.org/pipermail/bp_ipv6_intgovforum.org/attachments/20151130/84e287c8/attachment.html>

More information about the Bp_ipv6 mailing list