RE: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

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

And I think it wise to table the complete solution space to define and
get something working now.  
/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org 
> [mailto:owner-multi6@ops.ietf.org] On Behalf Of Tony Li
> Sent: Friday, August 13, 2004 5:29 AM
> To: Brian E Carpenter
> Cc: Multi6
> Subject: Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts
> 
> > 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
> 
> 
>