On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 1:05 PM, Steven Blake <[email protected]> wrote: > On Wed, 2008-12-31 at 11:57 -0500, William Herrin wrote: > >> On Wed, Dec 31, 2008 at 11:07 AM, RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> > I agree with Steve Blake that a NAT-oriented approach, >> > which I gather is category "H", ought to get serious consideration. >> >> Ran, >> >> Would you care to describe a NAT category which credibly addresses the >> routing scalability problem in a manner not already encompassed in >> widely deployed NAT systems? > > That's the point: widely deployed NAT (as it exists today) is a > do-nothing strategy from an interdomain routing point-of-view.
Steven, I fail to see the point in describing more than one version of "do nothing." If you insist that NAT needs mention, I would be willing to alter the stragey F description to: Strategy F. Do nothing. (RFC 1887 ยง 4.4.1). The gains already achieved via CIDR and NAT are sufficient to keep BGP stable for the foreseeable future. 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
