Joe, > My model describes the rules under which translation devices can operate > correctly and predictably in the Internet model. > > There are only a few alternatives for devices not explained by either model: > 1- the Internet and my model are incomplete > in that case, you’re welcome to provide one for the new device > 2- the Internet and/or my model are incorrect > in that case, you’re welcome to explain why > 3- the device should be considered incorrect and itself corrected > > Un-doing fragmentation at IP is an attempt to jump to a solution for #1 > without explaining WHY, other than “we need to do this to fix the Internet to > support these new devices”. > > I don’t think we should break known models to adapt to devices whose behavior > might never be correctly accommodated. > >> Take A+P (RFC6346), and it's instantiations through e.g. MAP-E (RFC7597). >> That's essentially normal longest match forwarding on addresses and ports. > > So? Any device that sources packets with addresses it owns IS an endpoint on > the Internet. Nothing changes based on how it translates those devices to the > private side.
Could you please read those documents and explain how A+P fits in your model? Note an A+P router does not translate, it forwards based on address and port. And as a normal router those addresses (and ports) are not identifying interfaces on the router, but on some end-system further away. Best regards, Ole
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list Int-area@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
