4 ms·
Sounds like you're describing NAT-PT, originally proposed in RFC 2766 (published in 2000). It suffers from a lot of practical problems, which are described at
by teraflop 5y ago
Sounds like you're describing NAT-PT, originally proposed in RFC 2766 (published in 2000).
It suffers from a lot of practical problems, which are described at length in RFC 4966. For example, without careful special handling it breaks protocols like FTP/SNMP/H.323 that embed IP addresses in data packets; it breaks IPsec; it can't handle fragmentation; and it suffers from scalability issues.
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2766 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc2766
https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4966 https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/rfc4966
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- im3w1l 5y ago> it breaks protocols like FTP/SNMP/H.323 that embed IP addresses in data packets Well it doesn't break them exactly. An ipv6 capable application would connect to the embedded ipv6 address and not be natted. But it fails to make a legacy application work, so you are no worse off at least.