Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

[Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>]

> 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.


I think that it is vitally important that we all understand this and
how we got here.  If we want a host to respond flexibly to
multiple addresses, then either (a) the protocol stack needs to know 
about
the various addresses and can swap between them on the fly, OR
(b) something NATty outside of the protocol stack has to "fool" the 
protocol
stack into responding consistently.

Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would change IPv6.
Folks who want to reject (b) now need to understand that they will be 
rejecting
the entire solution space...

Tony