Re: Fwd: A comment about MAST

[Masataka Ohta <mohta@necom830.hpcl.titech.ac.jp>]

Eugene and Dave;

> >> > If I understood you correctly, your concern seems to be that, with the
> >> > proposed MAST API, some applications are required to be modified just to
> >> > suit MAST as they had to with NAT.  Is this correct?
> >> Wrong. There is no MAST API. It is NAT API. Applications for the API
> >> is, behind NAT, notified address of a NAT box and tell it to its peer.
> 
> EMK> Not verbatim. 

The API is verbatim.

> In order for that to work, a new protocol is needed
> EMK> between a NAT gateway and machines behind it so the gateway can notify
> EMK> address changes to them.

and NAT lovers are working on it.

> NAT boxes do address translation and MAST does address translation. In a very
> theoretical sense there is, therefore, some similarity between them. However
> MAST is not a "network" address translation service and it really has nothing
> to do with the controversy surrounding NATs.

NAT translate "network address". MAST is identical.

> As for a "MAST API", none is needed.
> 
> MAST hides the multiple addresses from transport and above.  That is one of
> its features.

Dave, Eugene point it out it is untrue, just as NAT does not hide
the multiple addresses.

> I believe that any application protocol that uses direct IP addresses has a
> problem with any multi-homing/mobility solution.

Wrong concept.

Any application protocol that uses direct IP identifiers does not have a
problem with a multi-homing/mobility solution.

Instead, any application protocol that uses direct IP addresses has a
problem with NAT (and MAST, of course).

> Also, as soon as the application needs to benefit from knowing about -- and
> giving guidance about -- the availability of multiple addresses, then it needs
> an be nice to enhanced API. That is true for any multi-addressing solution,
> not just MAST.

Wrong concept. See above.

> EMK>   I think you are
> EMK> worried about something that does not even exist.
> 
> Correct.

It's nice that MAST dose not exist.

> >> You miss the point that MAST does not solve *THE* problem
> >> and is useless even as an intermediate solution.
> 
> EMK> I'm afraid you did not communicate what was `*THE* problem' you were
> EMK> trying to solve here.
> 
> Yes, it would be nice to hear a clear and coherent description of "the"
> problem.

Read the draft or my response to MAST.

							Masataka Ohta