Re: Mast vs HIP (was Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt)

[Dave Crocker <dhc@dcrocker.net>]

Pekka,

>> PN> Actually, HIP is even slightly more ambitious here.  It aims
>> PN> to provide application interoperability between the IPv4 and
>> PN> IPv6 APIs.  That is, with HIP an IPv4 client can talk directly
>> PN> to an IPv6 server,
>> I do not recall seeing the HIP specification call for IPv4/IPv6 packet
>> translation.  So I do not see how an IPv4-only host can talk with an IPv6-only
>> host, as a consequence of their both using HIP.  Where is this described in
>> the specification?

PN> If you have a HIP aware IPv4-IPv6 NAT box, why not?

translating gateways that are aware of new services can usually cover a host
(small pun) of sins.

forgive me for suggesting that this is like saying that I can spend dollars in
EU countries.  all I need is to have a currency exchange in every EU store.


PN> Such a
PN> NAT box just NAPTs the IP headers, leaving the ESP and its
PN> content untouched.

The issue is how much change to the infrastructure is required, and when.


>> ....  I must admit that
>> a scheme that calls for up to 3 different strings, to refer to the same thing
>> -- in addition to domain name and IP address(es) -- strikes me as rather
>> daunting.

PN> Sometimes you have to pay a price for backwards compatibility.

And sometimes you don't.

This is yet-another reason MAST avoids a new public namespace,


d/
--
 Dave Crocker <dcrocker-at-brandenburg-dot-com>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>