Louis,
an interesting discussion between Fred Baker and Rémi Després that
you could may be clarify about your catenet and datagram. Since this
(NAT66) is at the core of the IPv6 deployment your help might be precious.
----
Louis,
une discussion interessant entre Fred Baker et Rémi Després que tu
pourrais sans doute aider à claifier au sujets de tes catenet et
datagrames. Puisque le sujet (NAT66) est au coeur du déploiement
d'IPv6 ton aide pourrait être précieuse. L'idée de Fred est de
permettre une conversion de l'adresse réseau IPv6 actuelle (mobiles,
déménagement, reconfiguration, multihoming, multi-ISP) avec une
adresse réseau interne.
Tu retrouveras le Draft de Fred sous :
http://tools.ietf.org/rfcdiff?url1=draft-mrw-nat66-12&url2=draft-mrw-nat66-14
Cela m'interesse bougrement car c'est net, clair et simple et peut
facilement être utilisé à mon niveau IUI (côté utilisateur/côté
réseau) et aider le support de IID (IDv6) de façon transparente en
utilisant des noms de domaine pour porter la partie IDv6 utilisateur,
sous IPv6 ou IPv4.
jfc
At 17:03 03/05/2011, Fred Baker wrote:
From: Fred Baker <[email protected]>
To: Rémi Després <[email protected]>
Cc: IESG <[email protected]>, NAT66 HappyFunBall <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [nat66] NPTv6 deals with "packets",
not with "datagrams" - to be corrected after draft-14
On May 3, 2011, at 1:38 AM, Rémi Després wrote:
>> I also am confused by your use of the term "datagram". A
datagram is not a transport layer construct,
>
> Isn't User Datagram Protocol a transport layer protocol?
Yes, and unless the datagram is carried in IP, it's not actually a
datagram. I refer you to the definition of the term. A datagram is
self-addressed and contains all of the information necessary to
deliver it from its source to its destination.
>> it's a network layer construct.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/datagram
>
> To know what a datagram is in IETF, RFC's are IMHO better than an
online dictionary
If you want to play that game, so be it. The word "datagram" (along
with "catenet", which has largely been replaced by the term
"internet", in lwer case) was common in the 1970's and 1980's, and
the definition was well known to those present. So I don't find a
place that says "when I say 'datagram' I mean '...'" in the RFC
series - that was in published conference papers circa 1972 when the
datagram model was first being proposed as an alternative to virtual
circuits. What I do find, however, is this in IEN #48. The Internet
Engineering Notes (IENs) were a parallel document track used in the
1970's. IEN #48 is "The Catenet Model for Internetworking", written
by Vint Cerf. It says, among its assumptions, that
it is assumed that the
participating network allows switched access so that any source
computer can quickly enter datagrams for successive and different
destination computers with little or no delay (i.e., on the order
of tens of milliseconds or less switching time).
Under these assumptions, we can readily include networks which
offer "datagram" interfaces to subscribing host computers. That
is, the switching is done by the network based on a destination
address contained in each datagram passing across the host to
network interface.
A datagram is, unlike a packet carried in a virtual circuit, a
message that carries its own destination address and can therefore
be routed by the network without setting up such a circuit first.
> I hope the IESG won't accept your new interpretation.
Well, if they have a problem with it, they can ask the designers of
the architecture for their opinions. "Datagram" is a well known and
well understood term.
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
