Re: Newbie Question about addressing impacts

El 13/08/2004, a las 11:29, Tony Li escribió:

>> I repeat my comment from when I first saw Mike O'Dell's original 8+8
>> proposal: "It's architected NAT." I think anything that massages 
>> locators,
>> whether it's in the host stack or in a proxy, comes down to 
>> architected
>> NAT. Which means there is going to be state, so that the massage can 
>> be
>> reversed, so that the ULP always sees the same e2e identifier. It's a
>> design choice whether that state is in hosts, proxies, or both.
>>
>> Actually, we're kidding ourselves if we don't admit that this is what
>> we are going to end up doing.
>>
>
>
> I think that it is vitally important that we all understand this and
> how we got here.  If we want a host to respond flexibly to
> multiple addresses, then either (a) the protocol stack needs to know 
> about
> the various addresses and can swap between them on the fly, OR
> (b) something NATty outside of the protocol stack has to "fool" the 
> protocol
> stack into responding consistently.
>
> Years ago, we rejected (a) on the grounds that it would change IPv6.
>

Well, my understanding is that this is still a valid approach to the 
problem, and i didn't get the feeling that we have rejected it (at 
least since i am in this wg), so, may i ask why did you reject this 
approach?

> Folks who want to reject (b) now need to understand that they will be 
> rejecting
> the entire solution space...
>

Yes, FWIW, i agree that these are the two options

regards, marcelo

> Tony
>
>