On 31 Dec 2008, at 11:57, William Herrin wrote:
Ran,
1) It seems odd that you ask me particularly, and haven't
asked any of the other folks' whose comments I simply echoed. :-)
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?
2) Why rule out existing widely deployed NAT systems ?
Who cares whether a cat is black or white, so long as it caches
mice ?
I have no intention of adding:
Strategy H: We should use NAT!
Major criticisms: We should use NAT to do what exactly?
3) This has been talked about within RRG before, but in summary:
(NAT/NAPT or LocatorRewriting or pick a another name) performed
inside a site's border router can enable a site to multi-home
effectively without any de-aggregation (i.e. without any impact
on the DFZ RIB or DFZ FIB). Existing mechanisms that enable
distributed firewalls to share session state would clearly also
work to share NAT session state among a set of site border routers,
if that were desired.
I know of several sites that use this today with IPv4 and that are
happy with it. Those users' main concern is with the absence of
"Architected NAT" -- that is an open specification so they can obtain
the same capabilities from multiple router suppliers. This concept
also has been discussed at the BEHAVE WG list (and I'm told also
during several BEHAVE WG meetings in MSP). There is even an I-D
on "NAT66" that seems relevant.
Cheers,
Ran
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
