Ran, Please understand, I am neither for nor against the use of NAT as a route reduction technique. I do, however, insist on me being able to satisfactorily explain how a particular approach would reduce the need or demand for core routing slots. Until someone, such as yourself, has explained that to me well enough that I can explain it to someone else, it isn't gong in the document.
On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:49 AM, RJ Atkinson <[email protected]> wrote: > 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. It is not immediately obvious to me how any form of NAT66 reduces the demand for core routing slots. If it's obvious to you, I'm listening. > I also specifically cited "architected NAT", where there is > a concrete specification that has particular properties. Would you suggest a reference which describes "architected NAT"? The first 20 hits on google led to offhand comments which were unrevealing. > 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. Link please? >> We have determined beyond the shadow of a doubt >> that the status quo is not, at this time, self-reducing. > > Under IRTF process rules, only the RG Chairs have the authority > to make a consensus determination. That is an... interesting... refutation of established fact. 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
