Hi Remi,
On Oct 26, 2010, at 9:21 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
Sorry to get the impression that, on your side, you are "actively
not listening" to solutions that, being based on stateless automatic
tunneling, do provide an alternative to NAT66, and have distinctive
properties like e2e address preservation.
Remi, I have read at least two versions of the SAM draft, and I have
talked to you about it at length. I've also talked to Mark Townsley
about it, in an attempt to understand it. I certainly don't remember
every detail, but I do basically understand it. Unless it has
fundamentally changed since the last time I read it , SAM requires
changes at every site and, ultimately, on every host. Deploying
something like that is on the scale of deploying IPv6 -- it would take
10 or more years to do it. I am aware that you attribute a lot of
benefits to SAM, but for the purpose of people trying to bring up IPv6
networks today, SAM doesn't even exist.
I have not ignored you. I have spent hours trying to understand your
specification, and I just don't agree that it is a superior, or even
workable, solution to this problem right now. You are free to work on
it, and to try to convince people to use it, but it isn't applicable
to the situations where people want to use NAT66 right now to deploy
IPv6 networks.
or NAT66 as proposed in this document (which reduces the problem to
one of updating CPEs by updating the checksum) handles both issues.
AKAIK, NAT66 ins NOT compatible with SHIM6 (which requires hosts to
know their global addresses).
Do I miss something?
Nothing that requires hosts to know and use their global addresses is
compatible with the notion of Address Independence. Dead stop.
Margaret
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
