Christian Vogt allegedly wrote on 11/08/2009 9:06 PM: > On Nov 8, 2009, Brian E Carpenter wrote: > >> 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. > > This brings up a more general question: Should the RRG recommendation > be restricted to those solutions that RRG endorses? Or should it also > include solutions that have limitations, such as NAT66, along with an > explanation of those limitations? > > Although the latter option is more a solution space analysis than a > "recommendation", it would in my opinion be more valuable to the IETF > because it would be more comprehensive. Thoughts?
This is the point I was trying to make. As Dave Clark said, "architect the inevitable". In order for the IETF to have a strategy for developing routing, the IETF needs to make a prediction about how much NAT there will be where. _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
