Margaret Wasserman wrote:
>
> >But the problem remains as hard as it was in 1992. We don't know how
> >to aggregate routes for such addresses, and we don't know how to scale
> >the routing system without aggregation. Solve either of those
> >problems and you're done.
>
> Maybe we can't solve this problem....
>
> If not, then we won't have real PI addresses and we will end-up with
> NAT (or something very similar) in IPv6. Do you see some other
> possibility?
When 8+8 first appeared, I was delighted and referred to it as
"architected NAT." I think that is what we need, either in the form
of 8+8/GSE, map-and-encap, MHAP, or something like those. To me
that is by far the most hopeful class of solutions.
Dan Lanciani wrote:
>
> "Michel Py" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
...
> |One billion routes in the global routing table = does not scale.
>
> This is the main fallacy in your statement. You are assuming that a billion
> PI address blocks has to equate to a billion routes in some global routing
> table (or even that there has to *be* a global table). That would be the case
> only if we insist on remaining with a full-knowledge centralized routing model.
> Such models are outdated. We can do better.
We tried (NIMROD) to develop alternatives to full-knowledge flat
routing; but that attempt failed. However, as Noel would have told us
for the N'th time if he was watching this thread, any such alternative
requires a method of abstraction and summarization of routes, a.k.a.
aggregation. Today, the only way we know how to do that is
by shorter and shorter prefixes on binary numbers.
Quality Quorum wrote:
...
> ...The thing which is doable is to assign moveable transport-bound
> addresses + independent non-globally-visible and non-globally unique
> permanent local addresses + NAT, with DNS names being the only fixed
> points in this permanently shifting environment.
As I said above, there are better architected approaches than traditional
NAT, and unfortunately DNS is not as solid as you hope.
Michel Py wrote:
...
> ... There is nothing that says that the scalability
> should come from aggregation either.
There certainly is, if you generalize "aggregation" to mean
"abstraction and summarization" as noted above. But Noel has
ranted on this subject so many times that I will stop here.
Brian
--------------------------------------------------------------------
IETF IPng Working Group Mailing List
IPng Home Page: http://playground.sun.com/ipng
FTP archive: ftp://playground.sun.com/pub/ipng
Direct all administrative requests to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
