[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
And I think it wise to table the complete solution space to define and
get something working now.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> [mailto:email@example.com] On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:29 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Multi6
> Subject: Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
> > I repeat my comment from when I first saw Mike O'Dell's original 8+8
> > proposal: "It's architected NAT." I think anything that massages
> > locators, whether it's in the host stack or in a proxy,
> comes down to
> > architected NAT. Which means there is going to be state, so
> that the
> > massage can be reversed, so that the ULP always sees the same e2e
> > identifier. It's a design choice whether that state is in hosts,
> > proxies, or both.
> > Actually, we're kidding ourselves if we don't admit that
> this is what
> > we are going to end up doing.
> I think that it is vitally important that we all understand
> this and how we got here. If we want a host to respond
> flexibly to multiple addresses, then either (a) the protocol
> stack needs to know about the various addresses and can swap
> between them on the fly, OR
> (b) something NATty outside of the protocol stack has to
> "fool" the protocol stack into responding consistently.
> Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would change IPv6.
> Folks who want to reject (b) now need to understand that they
> will be rejecting the entire solution space...