Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[Brian E Carpenter <brc@zurich.ibm.com>]

Tony Li wrote:
> On Aug 12, 2004, at 6:31 AM, Fleischman, Eric wrote:
>
> > This is an interesting idea. However, if we embed proxy functions into 
> > border routers it would potentially add overhead (as well as latency) 
> > and make them harder to manage. Specifically, the number of border 
> > routers is likely to increase as network perimeters become more 
> > porous. Thus, this idea carries with it the need to ensure that these 
> > distributed routers can be configured with consistent policies.
> >
> > Simple is good in operations.
>
>
> Well, then the other architectural alternative that I can see is to 
> embed NAT-like functionality in all of the hosts.
>
> I find this scarier.

Chair hat off:

I repeat my comment from when I first saw Mike O'Dell's original 8+8
proposal: "It's architected NAT." I think anything that massages locators,
whether it's in the host stack or in a proxy, comes down to architected
NAT. Which means there is going to be state, so that the massage can be
reversed, so that the ULP always sees the same e2e identifier. It's a
design choice whether that state is in hosts, proxies, or both.

Actually, we're kidding ourselves if we don't admit that this is what
we are going to end up doing.

Chair hat on:

The design team has been asked to develop one specific approach
to this, namely the IP wedge layer approach, because that is where
the proposals and interest in the WG seem to be concentrated.

   Brian