Tony Li allegedly wrote on 02 23 2009 2:41 PM:
> |> 3.1.2. Translation
> |>
> |> Translation solutions are characterized by a translation
> |> operation between an identifier to a locator and back to an
> |> identifier as the packet traverses the network.
> |
> |Now that I've pondered this a little, I can't think of any approach
> |that does that (translate from identifier to locator and back again).
>
> NAT, for example.
NAT translates from a local locator to a global locator ("RLOC" in the
terminology you want us to adopt). You say
> It's not unreasonable to have a name that has both
> identification semantics and local locator scope.
That's true, and what matters in the case of NAT is the "local locator"
semantics. NAT is not treating the address field it translates as an
endpoint identifier, but as an address. That's why I say NAT doesn't do
what you said it does.
> |> 3.3.1. Strategy A
If we end up using this classification scheme in our recommendation to
the IETF, one thing we need to do is name these strategy buckets in ways
that are easier to remember than "A", "B", etc.
Scott
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
