Focusing on one comment: Scott Brim wrote: ...
On 5/2/08 10:33 PM, Joel M. Halpern allegedly wrote:Actually, the way I look at it, both encaps and rewrite (map-and-encaps and translation) have the property that the information of interest to the upper layers is carried and preserved.But to get to that level, where they are the same, you have to get above transport, and up there every proposal so far is essentially the same. The information of interest to the upper layers is carried and preserved. So that doesn't distinguish things.
Well, at the very least it distinguishes the proposals from NAT. And while we all agree that classic NAT as it is practiced is a bad idea, it is important to remember what properties we care about. Particularly when we are considering translation solutions.
Joel -- 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