On Tue, Dec 30, 2008 at 3:19 PM, Brian E Carpenter <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2008-12-31 04:42, William Herrin wrote: >> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 9:03 PM, Steven Blake <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> http://bill.herrin.us/network/rrgarchitectures.html >>> What about Strategy H: Everybody uses NAT? >> NAT was discussed. The discussion identified one approach which made a > I think Steve, and Dave Meyer, were referring to a widely deployed > current solution, not to a proposal. Unless you regard this as part of > strategy F, of course.
I categorize generic NAT with CIDR: expended. I would not mind a historical look at technologies which we've used to improve routing scalability to get where we are now, but I don't feel compelled to write one myself. As a group, we looked at whether we could wring more gains from NAT some months ago. We talked of tweaking NAT first one way and then another. With the exception of with Six/One Router, none of the participants could offer a credible hypothesis as to how any particular take on NAT would reduce demand for routing table slots. The solution space summary document should probably answer the question: "what did we find when we looked at NAT?". I'll make this addendum item #2. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
