Re: draft-savola-multi6-asn-pi-01.txt

[jnc@mercury.lcs.mit.edu (Noel Chiappa)]

    > From: Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>

    >> If people want a namespace which *doesn't* have those properties,
    >> because they find those properties *inconvenient*, then they can get
    >> off their tailbones and add one.

    > As a matter of fact, this is today's practice. The trouble is, that in
    > order to preserve a rational and uniform *internal* addressing plan, it
    > is achieved by using NAT at each ISP access point.

In light of my immediately preceeding comment, this seems to me to be an
obvious sign that we have too few namespaces *in the current system*.

    > The tricky bit is to achieve the same effect without NAT and without
    > horrendous address administration busy-work.

Were such another namespace (e.g of host ID's) available, so that the
routing-names of these machines would be less "interesting" (and possibly
assigned automatically, e.g. by concatenating an "interface ID" with the
routing-name of the physical network they connect to - and yes, I know
there's lots of other needed springs and gears, like getting those addresses
into something like the DNS), do you think we would not see this focus on the
routing-names?

In other words, is the situation you describe (where people have one
addressing scheme internally, and another externally, with NAT to map between
them) caused precisely by having too few name-spaces - or would the same
thing happen even if we also have an additional namespace of host identifiers?

If the latter, that's something I'd like to understand - because clearly,
unless the system as a whole somehow provides whatever it is that people
think they need here, they will continue to use NAT boxes...

	Noel