Suresh,
Sorry for the late feedback, but there are some issues that should
be discussed. Some of the following are my views of the document and
others are summarized based on feedback from others.
To be clear, the following comments are being made as an individual
participant.
1. The idea of creating a Layer-2 NAT is rather unappealing. Many folks
in the IETF understand the rash of issues that arise with this type of
approach. It appears that is what happens with SARP (at least in some
instance).
2. It is unclear *who* would want to build (or has built) a layer-2
network at this size and sees the application of proxies/NATs as the
solution to scaling issues. Are there operators who have built networks
in this way who can clearly explain the problem space? This comes about
from the outcome of ARMD.
3. Given the length of time that this draft has been around, are there
implementations?
4. How does this approach deal with non-IP traffic?
Now with my AD hat on...
I believe there are some issues raised by Dave Allan that have been
left unanswered, though Dave can correct me if I am wrong. Consensus
does not require unanimity, but it does require that all concerns raised
be addressed.
Regards,
Brian
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
