Re: [RRG] Separation vs. Elimination

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-09-22 19:25, Tony Li wrote:
>  
> 
> |So it seems to me that ESDs are similar to PI addresses (i.e.  GSE  
> |doesn't eliminate the USE of PI addresses, but does get rid of them  
> |in the transit space).  
> 
> 
> This is exactly where I have to disagree.  The ESD is simply not an address.
> It is a wholly orthogonal namespace.  While it is globally unique, it shares
> no other properties with a PI address that I can see.
> 
> 
> |How is GSE similar to NAT?
> 
> 
> GSE does pure translation on the routing bits.  In a NAT environment, the
> routing goop is translated into an RFC 1918 address.  In GSE, the routing
> goop gets zeroed out.
> 
> GSE is better than NAT in that it does provide a real identifier that
> applications can now exchange freely, so that much of the translation
> ugliness within NAT (e.g., FTP port commands) can go away.

The cost of that excellent property is that transport protocols,
IPsec, and any address-depedencies in upper layers, all have to be
tweaked iirc. ILNP also needs DNS enhancements; probably any GSE
solution does.

However, I fully agree with Steve; I have always referred to GSE
as "architected NAT".

   Brian

--
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