RE: Draft of updated WG charter

["Tony Li" <Tony.Li@procket.com>]

Vijay,

Would you accept changes to the NAT box?

Would you allow the insertion of a NAT layer in the end host stack?

Tony


|  -----Original Message-----
|  From: vijay gill [mailto:vgill@vijaygill.com] 
|  Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 9:40 AM
|  To: Noel Chiappa
|  Cc: multi6@ops.ietf.org
|  Subject: Re: Draft of updated WG charter
|  
|  
|  On Fri, Jan 09, 2004 at 08:58:18AM -0500, Noel Chiappa wrote:
|  
|  > If the WG as a whole agrees with you (and this is an 
|  important point to nail
|  > down - my guess would be that they do not), then you've 
|  basically eliminated
|  > all solutions to the problem other than recycling 
|  Mobile-IPv6 mechanisms
|  > (since the charter rules out "let the routing do it", 
|  which means it has to
|  > be done via use of multiple addresses).
|  > 
|  > I'm curious as to why you want to rule out any changes to 
|  the end-hosts. I
|  > note that Mobile-IPv6 didn't restrict themselves in this way.
|  
|  Significant amount of users that are multihomed have a setup that
|  accepts defaults from two providers, and anounces their blocks to
|  both upstreams. They receive no more information than the fact
|  that their connection is up. No routing tables, no prefixes, just
|  a quadzero.
|  
|  (users defined as an enterprise, not the invididual computer user
|  obviously)
|  
|  The end user system is often nat'd, and run through a stateful
|  firewall and all the information _they_ have is an ip address
|  of the gateway via dhcp.
|  
|  Any end-host updating solution must work through this gobbledegook.
|  
|  /vijay
|  
|