|
FYI -------- Message original --------
Margaret Wasserman - le (m/j/a) 3/17/09 1:13 AM: > > Hi Remi, > > I have a few high-level comments/questions on this draft from my first > reading, and I may have more after I have reviewed it in more detail. > > (1) You have indicated that you would like to discuss this draft in > the 6AI BOF, but you have not cc:ed the mailing list for the 6AI BOF > ([email protected]). Also, have you talked to the chairs of the 6AI BOF > (Bob Hinden and Dan Wing) about whether they are willing to include > this draft on the agenda, despite the fact that it has not been posted > to the I-D archive? There doesn't appear to be an agenda online for > the 6AI BOF yet, so I am not sure if it will be included. I started with the NAT66 mailing list, and only followed with WG lists. See also Dan's answer. > > (2) The end hosts in the SAM system need to know their globally > routable addresses, so how can SAM be said to provide address > independence? Routing within the site is based on local addresses, e.g. ULAs. That's only in SAM-capable CPEs and in SAM-capable hosts that, knowing SAM parameters, global-address packets can be encapsulated in local-address packets. > (3) Exactly what formulation of the end-to-end principle are you > referring to in this paper when you indicate that SAM preserves it in > IPv6? Thanks for the remark. There should be a reference, e.g. to RFC 1958. What is meant is IP-layer network transparency, e2e. Addresses and ports that are seen by two communicating applications must be the same at both ends. > My understanding of the end-to-end principle is that it has to do with > putting intelligence at the edges of the network (in hosts vs. > routers/middleboxes) and with putting certain function at the top of > the protocol stack (apps layer vs. lower layers). This is based on my > understanding (and recollection) of a paper by Jerry Saltzer, D. Reed > and Dave Clark written in the mid 1980s, which you can find here: > > http://web.mit.edu/Saltzer/www/publications/endtoend/endtoend.txt > > It is also reasonably well-summarized in this Wikipedia article. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/End-to-end_principle > > Based on my understanding of the end-to-end principle, I don't see any > significant difference in SAM vs. NAT66 WRT how much they maintain (or > violate) the end-to-end principle, as both mechanisms place some > functions/intelligence in the infrastructure. With SAM, hosts know their global addresses, and can use them, e.g. with SCTP or Shim6. In my understanding, this is a difference (an an important one). Regards, RD |
_______________________________________________ nat66 mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
