[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [RRG] map-and-map (vs map-and-encaps) - further thoughts
On 2008-01-04 23:08, Brian Dickson wrote:
Here are some further interesting side-benefits that come from doing
transmogrification (onto, and then 1:1, mappings), rather than
encapsulation (tunneling):
It is possible for non-EID hosts (without an ITR) to speak to an EID
host, by addressing it via any of its RLOC addresses. The ETR maps the
RLOC onto the EID, and the EID host doesn't know any different.
My attention may have been off, but I don't quite recall how your
proposal remaps to the original addresses at or near the recipient,
which is required for the EID host not to know any different
(because of all the reasons that NAT breaks upper layers).
We travelled this road in multi6/shim6 and that's how we ended up with
shim6 being essentially signalled double ended NAT. I don't see how
you can untransmogrify without signalling.
Brian C
--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg