Hello Christian Thank you for a good document. When reading it, it occurred to me that how is it with nesting of one-to-one translators into a hierarchy. Would that be somewhat expensive in terms of address usage and in particular for discovery (ref. section 4.1 in your document), as costly as with one-to-many for reachability discovery and more expensive in terms of address usage?
Best regards Hannu >-----Original Message----- >From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On >Behalf Of ext Christian Vogt >Sent: Monday, March 16, 2009 22:33 >To: Routing Research Group Mailing List >Subject: [rrg] Qualifying the Harmfulness of Address Translation > >Dear RRG Fellows - > >During the design of Six/One Router, I spent much of my energy >on finding a translation-based solution that, even when >deployed unilaterally and thus not transparent to >applications, would avoid as much as possible of the problems >of IPv4 NAPT. > >More recently, many of the issues that motivated this earlier >work have again come up in the discussion around IPv6 NAT (aka >"NAT66"). I hence decided to document my earlier analysis as >input to this discussion: > >http://users.piuha.net/chvogt/pub/2009/draft-vogt-address-trans >lation-harmfulness-02.txt > >The analysis looks at potential problems of different address >translator designs, and evaluates the cost and completeness of >solutions to those problems. Although the analysis is written >for the IPv6 NAT community, I believe it has value also here >within RRG. Comments appreciated. > >- Christian > > >PS: On terminology: The "one-to-one address translator" >evaluated in the analysis is what Six/One Router uses in >Unilateral mode. > > > >_______________________________________________ >rrg mailing list >[email protected] >http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg > _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
