[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Mast vs HIP (was Re: Comments on draft-crocker-mast-proposal-00.txt)
Dave,
Dave Crocker wrote:
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.
Well, I would say that it is more like a service that allows us to
buy goods from US web stores using euros. There just will be a box
in between which translates the dollar figures in euro figures,
and the bank will do the rest :-) That is, you get the feeling that
you are using only euros, while you are not. It is natural that
someone has to do something to make it work.
The issue is how much change to the infrastructure is required, and when.
You have to pay a price for IPv4-IPv6 interoperability anyway.
If the HIP price is lower than the NATPT/SIIT/... price, it may
make HIP more acceptable or even lucrative at the market.
PN> Sometimes you have to pay a price for backwards compatibility.
And sometimes you don't.
HIP may be slightly more expensive than something else, but you
get so much more in the box. :-) And better design quality, too :-)
Maybe HIP will be the mac while MAST the windows of this field :-)
You get what you pay for. :-)
--Pekka