[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [RRG] Separation vs. Elimination



Steve,

Thank you for your comments on our paper.

On Sep 22, 2008, at 12:23 AM, Steven Blake wrote:

On Sat, 2008-09-20 at 23:10 -0600, He Yan wrote:

On Sep 20, 2008, at 8:42 PM, Steven Blake wrote:

The statement "A common requirement of all the separation solutions
is a mapping system that associate an edge prefix with the corresponding
                                  ^s
transit addresses." on page 2 is false.  GSE, for instance, requires
no such mapping.

In GSE, isn't there a similar mapping between ESD and RG?
Correct me if  I am wrong.

In GSE there is no notion of globally unique edge site prefixes.
When a host resolves an address for another host in an external site and
sends a packet to it, that packet has (one of) the RG(s) of that
external site in it's destination address field.

I've read the GSE draft several times. My understanding is that in GSE, every host has a globally unique ESD. In fact, the unique source/host ESDs are used as a connection identifier at the transport layer (they can't be used this way if they're not globally unique). So it seems to me that ESDs are similar to PI addresses (i.e. GSE doesn't eliminate the USE of PI addresses, but does get rid of them in the transit space). DNS provides the mapping between ESDs and RGs.

GSE is just a very clever form of NAT.  NAT in general is a separation
scheme that does not require the mapping you describe above.

I don't quite understand your above comment.  How is GSE similar to NAT?

Lan

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg