Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt

["Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>]

Dear Iljitsch,

I'm not sure we're talking about the same "additional" address -
I'm thinking that a device with two interfaces now already needs
two addresses (so the second address isn't "additional"), and
you're thinking that a device that has only one interface and
one address now would need an "additional" address to do
MAST.

I think.

Spencer

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <iljitsch@muada.com>
To: "Spencer Dawkins" <spencer@mcsr-labs.org>
Cc: "Multi6 Mailing List" <multi6@ops.ietf.org>
Sent: Saturday, September 06, 2003 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt


> On zaterdag, sep 6, 2003, at 14:32 Europe/Amsterdam, Spencer Dawkins
> wrote:
>
> >> But is it realistic to expect to deploy a technology in IPv4 that
> >> usesup additional address space?
>
> > Dave keeps saying "a proposal, not a specification", but as I read
the
> > MAST proposal, it doesn't use up additional address space - Dave,
> > can you give me a clue here?
>
> Wouldn't a host need two or more addresses to use MAST? (I must
admit I
> haven't read it in detail but the general principles are similar to
> several earlier proposals.) Anyway, I would hate to see
IPv4-specific
> problems (NAT...) get in the way of an IPv6 solution.