Re: Review: draft-ietf-v6ops-nap-01.txt

[Tim Chown <tjc@ecs.soton.ac.uk>]

On Tue, Aug 23, 2005 at 03:54:39PM +0800, Fred Baker wrote:
> 
> On Aug 23, 2005, at 3:17 PM, Gunter Van de Velde (gvandeve) wrote:
> 
> >Unfortunatly the industry need for having a tool to provide  
> >topology hiding is
> >real.... and is very easy to deploy in the IPv4 world by using  
> >address translation, hence
> >the IPv6 community better provides some solution for this and the  
> >MIPv6
> >one seems most appropriate to me at the moment. (The /128 ULA's is  
> >a different
> >story)
> 
> Compared to having an address space one doesn't advertise outside,  
> mobile ip v6 seems really complex. I'm not fond of ULAs, but as I  
> said in another context, simply having a prefix that is not  
> advertised seems quite sufficient for hiding internal-only systems.  
> And it's only the internal-only systems any of this hides; systems  
> that can be seen from the outside can be seen from the outside, and  
> the fact that they are on the same or different LANs is really window- 
> dressing compared to that.

My view is along those of Stig and Fred.

Given how NAP is in itself a 're-education' tool, we could/should use it
as an opportunity to highlight what can be done with IPv6.   The schemes
for topology hiding proposed to date add back a lot of the complexity that
IPv6 in principle removes.   I really don't agree with the NAP draft's
approach on the topology hiding issue, though otherwise I think it's an 
excellent document.  I think some simpler words can be said, and MIPv6
or host routing avoided (or Mark's scheme, sorry :).

As an aside, when you say 'topology hiding' Gunter, do you really mean
subnet/link topology, or the number of hosts, or...?

-- 
Tim/::1