On 2009-11-03 07:35, Scott Brim wrote:
> Tony Li allegedly wrote on 11/02/2009 12:35 PM:
>> A simple question: what does NAT really have to do with our discussion
>> about routing architecture?
>
> The discussion has strayed off the path but what I said originally was:
>
>> - NAT is now architecture. The IETF needs to decide how much NAT it
>> wants the Internet to have in the future. This strongly influences
>> what we do in routing/addressing, because outlying, dwindling cases
>> (either the NAT ones or the non-NAT ones) can be handled specially.
An argument has been made, and I don't intend to endorse it, that
stateless NAT66 would be a fine solution to the problems of
multihoming, BGP scaling, and renumbering hassles, all in
one simple wrapper.
In other words, if you accept this argument, there is no problem
with the current (1994 vintage) routing architecture.
[Something about not shooting messenger goes here.]
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
