On  31 Dec 2008, at 20:15, William Herrin wrote:
I would like to hear about additional NAT-based techniques which, like
Chris' notion, suggest a credible plan for reducing the demand for
core routing slots compared to the status quo.

I cited "NAT66" specifically.  I also noted both where that
discussion has been happening (although some related
discussion has also happened here) and the existence of an I-D.
For example, one form of NAT66 is stateless, meaning that
sessions could be initiated from outside or inside the NAT
perimeter.  Please go read the draft.

I also specifically cited "architected NAT", where there is
a concrete specification that has particular properties.

Thirdly, I've talked in the past about how Locator rewriting
(which is a kind of NAT) could be used with ILNP.  This is a bit
similar to Six/One, but is not identical.  This is discussed
in detail in various published papers.

Either of these is rather different from your apparent view
of a single monolithic "IPv4 NAT".  In fact, a wide range of
different forms of NAT exist, most of which are not very well
documented.  Different NAT techniques/implementations have
different properties.

I would prefer not to hear about the usefulness of vanilla NAT.

Certainly, it is your choice what you choose to read or hear.

We have determined beyond the shadow of a doubt
that the status quo is not, at this time, self-reducing.

The RG has *not* made a determination that all existing NAT
techniques (there are a wide range of various NAT methods
available in myriad different implementations) aren't part
of the possible solution set.

Under IRTF process rules, only the RG Chairs have the authority
to make a consensus determination.

Vanilla NAT is indeed useful, but as
widely deployed today it is already a part of the status quo.


Since IPv4 NAT has so many different forms, with varying
properties, I have no idea what you mean when you say
"Vanilla NAT".

Yours,

Ran
[email protected]

_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

Reply via email to