New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Make it unambiguous in the text that we are talking about stateful NAT64 #3

Open

momoka0122y opened this issue Jan 4, 2023 · 0 comments

Owner

momoka0122y commented Jan 4, 2023

comment from Gabor LENCSE
https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/v6ops/LXXuGxJrBa61aH_rJ-UsG2xlyIY/

In the draft, you mention NAT64. Seeing this, most people likely
think of stateful NAT64. A few (like me) thinks that it can be either
stateful NAT64 [RFC6146] or stateless NAT64 [RFC7915] ("officially"
called SIIT). I saw that you referred to RFC 6146, but I think it would
be worth making it unambiguous also in the text that you are talking
about stateful NAT64.

momoka0122y added a commit that referenced this issue


          Use the word "stateful NAT64". #3

18ff657

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment