Michael Thomas wrote:
>
> Brian E Carpenter writes:
> > Michael,
> >
> > Sorry, but I think you are dead wrong, and you are moving us backward
> > and risking another year or two of wasted time.
> >
> > There is nothing new in this whole argument. As I pointed out
> > in the IAB architecture session in Vienna, these issues have been
> > around for 6 years at least. We know what we can do with today's
> > routing mechanisms, today's renumbering mechanisms, and today's
> > security mechanisms, and that leads *directly* to the requirements
> > in the Hain/Templin draft, and IMHO *directly* to the solution in
> > the Hinden/Haberman draft.
>
> Which leads *directly* to NAT's at "local"
> boundaries and /48's in the DFZ.
As has been said by various people, all this is somewhat orthogonal to
whether NAT's appear. If we provide
a) unambiguous provider-independent prefixes
b) good mechanisms for running with these *in parallel* with routeable
provider prefixes
c) site multihoming
d) renumbering tools
we'll have done about all we can do, I believe, to make NAT unnecessary
and more painful than the alternative. But as usual, it's not the
IETF that decides what gets sold and used.
>
> And Fred's draft really shows how little we know
> about renumbering in the real world.
>
> > I think we are way past the point in history where it is fruitful to
> > make the sort of free-space wish-the-world-was-different analysis
> > you are advocating. Hinden/Haberman leads to simple, straightforward
> > changes to shipping code and that's all we can afford now.
>
> I'm having a very difficult time reconciling what
> you're saying here with your "Let's abolish" post.
Why? My point about the existing notion of scope is
that it is not useful, so we can drop it.
> It's almost like you're saying we should do
> nothing at all. While nothing is often better than
> a bad something, in this case there's shipping
> product to fill the vacuum: NAT's. And they are
> well understood given their v4 deployment. Is that
> what you're ceding?
No. I'm very frustrated at how slowly all this has developed,
but we should certainly get a) through d) above done.
Brian
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Brian E Carpenter
Distinguished Engineer, Internet Standards & Technology, IBM
NEW ADDRESS <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PLEASE UPDATE ADDRESS BOOK
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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]
--------------------------------------------------------------------
