[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[RRG] Knee jerking

On 2008-03-25 16:35, Dino Farinacci wrote:
...
>> Ok, I'm fine with that.  You're effectively shifting to a NAT approach
>> for
>> transition.  If you do that, do you even need PTRs anymore?
> 
> Well you know the knee-jerk reaction to NATs.

Here's the thing... IPv4 is already irremediably broken by
NAT (i.e. all upper layer designs must already allow for
IPv4 NAT, or even worse NAPT). So if the LISP transition
for IPv4 sites includes NAT, it really isn't a new problem
for the upper layers.

However, it would be sad if LISP required NAT for IPv6,
since the reality is that we're looking at this whole
class of solutions (and shim6) precisely to avoid the need
for NAT. In fact, although I don't fully agree with
draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass, it does point
us in the direction of needing a complete new identity
system at layer 4, if we end up breaking IPv6 with NAT too.

      Brian

--
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