Re: [RRG] Re: Arguments against Transport, Translation & Six/One Router

[Robin Whittle <rw@firstpr.com.au>]

Hi Stephane,

You wrote:

>>   I suggest we eliminate "Translation" and "Transport"
>>   approaches from consideration, since 19 months after
>>   the RAWS workshop the only potentially practical
>>   proposals are all Map-Encap.
> 
> I am not sure I agree with your classification. Where do you put HIP?

AFAIK HIP is not under consideration to solve the routing
scalability problem.  It is not mentioned in the RRG's wiki.  It is
not compatible with current applications or operating systems, so
even if it solved the routing scalability problem, I don't see how
it could be a practical solution, since there is no way we are going
to be able to convince everyone to create and use HIP-compliant
applications and operating systems to the exclusion of what they use
now.


>> Firstly, as noted in the above-linked message, during the
>> "transition period", in order to provide backwards compatibility,
>> your proposal involves deep packet inspection and modification of
>> traffic packets.  
> ...
>> This is absolutely impossible to implement in a solution for
>> universal adoption as the RRG will be proposing, 
> 
> You may not like it but saying it is impossible is a bit strange since
> currently, most users today access Internet through a NAT box which
> typically works that way (with the limitations you mention).

NAT does not involve understanding application protocols for the
purpose of finding raw IP addresses being communicated between
applications so that those addresses can be rewritten.  I understand
that Six/One Router involves its translation routers doing this,
which I think is wildly impractical.

 - Robin


--
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