RE: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

["Bound, Jim" <jim.bound@hp.com>]

I agree with Brian on this point strongly.
/jim 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Brian E Carpenter
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 4:01 AM
> To: Multi6
> Subject: Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
> 
> 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
> 
> 
>