On 2011-03-03 19:51, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter ([email protected]):
>
>> On 2011-03-03 10:49, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>>> Thus wrote Brian E Carpenter ([email protected]):
>>>
>>>> On 2011-03-03 09:30, S.P.Zeidler wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>>> Which applications will have trouble with address stability and
>>>>> provider independence, thus requiring you to make the benefits of NPTv6
>>>>> line up with the applications you want to use??
>>>> The usual ones - those that for whatever reason have explicit
>>>> dependency on the IP address of the peer.
>>> i.e. they will have trouble with PI addresses also?
>> No, why?
>
> I am trying to point out that you (and the draft) are claiming that.
>
> The benefit of NPTv6 is address stability and provider independence.
> The benefit of PI is address stability and provider independence.
>
> The cost of the method NPTv6 applies to get that benefit is that the
> addresses change in flight. -This- is the issue.
>
> The benefit does not cause any trouble.
> The means by which you reach this benefit may.
>
> You see the distinction?
Of course. PI has the cost of exploding the BGP4 table.
NPTv6 has the cost of destroying address transparency.
Since SHIM6 has neither of these costs, are you surprised
that I prefer it?
Brian
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
