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 [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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