Brian,
As has been said before, all of the translation options are basicallyarchitected NAT.To adapt to this, applications can either perform NAT kludges or change to truly operate on a separate and clear identifier.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. That doesn't happen with a map/encap solution.
Actually, it is not that simple. If you look at the entire design and not just one aspect of it, you have to consider:
(a) whether you'll deliver the packet intact or not (b) whether (and how) you can talk to peers in the existing internet (c) and so onThe map/encap solution that would operate in the global Internet have been able to deal with (b) in two ways: by assuming the deployment of friendly and accessible-by-anyone tunnel proxies, or by using translation. The group has not been able to convince itself that the former has deployment incentives, and the latter coincides with the translation designs. In fact, I think Christian's Six/One Router translates only in the case that you talk to legacy nodes. If so, that approach is in fact exactly the same as the current map/encap designs.
(But I agree with you that translation is problematic. Even if you get rid of many of the problems associated with traditional NATs.)
Jari -- 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