On Mar 10, 2009, at 15:20, Fred Baker wrote:
On Mar 10, 2009, at 3:13 PM, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
But of course prefix translation doesn't provide the "benefit"
described in RFC4864 section 2.4.
Very explicitly, which in my opinion is quite important.
Specifically, under Margaret's model, an end host behind a N**66 can
directly and predictably address another host behind a different
N**66 and exchange any application's data flows with it. That's not
true of the other N words...
They cannot exchange *ALL* application data flows. Only *SOME*.
More specifically, only those application data flows in which nodes
either A) do not exchange global scope IPv6 interface addresses with
one another for callbacks, or B) coordinate by some as-yet-unimagined
protocol with all the prefix-translating middleboxes in any given path
between peers to make sure that each remote node uses the appropriate
callback address to the local node for its routing realm.
That we keep forgetting this is a dismaying forewarning of the future
architectural problems we will bring upon the Internet by advancing
this proposal in the standards track.
--
james woodyatt <[email protected]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
