RE: [RRG] Consensus? Router-based Translation schemes can only work with duplicate address space

[Randall Atkinson <rja@extremenetworks.com>]

Robin,

While I am impressed with your stamina, I'll save folks time here
and say that again I disagree with many of the premises that
you believe.

- Translation schemes might make packets longer, depending
  on the design.  Consider IPv4::IPv6 translation for example,
  where the packet header increases significantly in size.

- We agree that tunnelling has various issues, but they are part
  of the architectural tradeoffs for the group to evaluate.  All
  proposed approaches have tradeoffs, as near as I can tell.

% This looks like a robust theoretical argument why a router-based
% translation scheme can never be efficient or robust unless it uses
% duplicate address space - which means such an approach
% cannot be practical for IPv4.

Kindly consider NAT/NAPT/similar devices, which many folks dislike,
but which continue to be widely deployed and used -- with many
folks finding the tradeoffs acceptable, the deployment efficient
enough and robust enough.  These boxes are fundamentally
translation systems and are a counter-example for your
bold claim quoted above.

Cheers,

Ran


--
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