RE: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add IPv6 and stir]

["Bound, Jim" <Jim.Bound@hp.com>]

I went to an industry session yesterday in New England that discussed
blades, switches, 10gbE and beyond.  The IPv6 PMTU is large and capable.
I believe adding 128bits at original node idea to a DST, EXT option will
not kill the Internet or fast path for any ASICs I am looking at now
(not for routing but host IP / IPsec offload engines for prototype and
research on day job).  Just as note.  Also routing header is not a good
idea that was just off the top of the head.  EXT or DST option would the
way to go and be transparent to routers which is one of my goals.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:brian@hursley.ibm.com] 
> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 9:09 AM
> To: Iljitsch van Beijnum
> Cc: Bound, Jim; multi6@ops.ietf.org
> Subject: Re: GSE IDs [Re: IETF multihoming powder: just add 
> IPv6 and stir]
> 
> 
> Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > ... NAT shows that it is
> > possible to build middleboxes that keep lots of state.
> 
> and the failure modes associated with NATs show why
> this is a really bad idea. But even NATs keep that state 
> reasonably local; it doesn't have to be known by magic to an 
> anti-NAT at the other end.
> 
> Iljitsch, the big hole in your -00 draft is that is doesn't
> at all discuss the magic needed to distribute mapping state
> and keep it fresh. As I think I already said, this is why we 
> never pursued the map-and-encap proposal some years ago- it's 
> not a side issue, it's *the* issue in this class of 
> solutions, and it is the fundamental difference from 8+8/GSE.
> 
> I believe MHAP does discuss this question. And as Jim said, 
> there are stateless solutions, but that means adding bits to 
> the packet.
> 
>   Brian
>