Re: [RRG] Six/One Router Design Clarifications

[Christian Vogt <christian.vogt@nomadiclab.com>]

Brian -

> Well yes, but many of the solutions deliver the original packet, and
> it seems that in the particular case Christian was describing, Six/One
> Router would deliver a translated packet.

Right.  The particular case you are referring to is the case where
upgraded and legacy edge networks communicate.  The backwards
compatibility method that the Six/One Router paper proposes for this
case is unilateral address rewriting, and this has the described
affect of delivering a translated packet.

Of course, Six/One Router delivers the original packet unchanged in
case two upgraded edge networks communicate with each other.

> That doesn't happen with a map/encap solution.

It is actually a question of which backwards compatibility method you
use rather than a question of whether or not you use map-and-encap
(tunneling) for address indirection.  And this brings me to a more
general point:

We should differentiate between the address indirection method and the
backwards compatibility method, because the two are orthogonal to each
other.  And we should evaluate the best solution for either of these
independently of each other.

We have three main methods for backwards compatibility on the RRG
table, and all were proposed for a particular address indirection
method:  Proxying was proposed for LISP and Ivip, unilateral address
rewriting was proposed for Six/One Router, and per-provider deployment
was proposed for APT.  However, we should understand that neither of
these backwards compatibility methods is bound to a particular address
indirection method.  Any combination is feasible.

- Christian



--
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