On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 16:38:22 -0500, Scott Brim <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It looks like Strategy A includes both what UCLA calls "separation" and > translation, and that Strategy B is "elimination" with the assumption of > rewriting at the edge. I think there are four categories here, and they > are different enough that they should be separated. In particular, > separation and elimination preserve packet headers end-to-end. OK maybe > not in the face of carrier grade NAT but at least there is a chance that > headers will be preserved. Translation rewrites headers at least once, > at the core boundary. This gives you three cases: Separation with > headers maintained (e.g. map-n-encap), Elimination with headers > maintained (e.g. ILNP), Translation (e.g. Six/One Router). Finally you > have a fourth, the GSE special hybrid which includes Elimination by > splitting ID and Locator at the endpoint, but also Translation at the > network edge. ILNP also fits into the last class, if network locator translation is deployed at the network edge. NLT is optional and does not need to be deployed universally (or even at both ends of a connection). If I recall correctly, Six/One only needs to translate the locator portion of the address field, also. Regards, // Steve _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
