> > 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 argument requires PI space used for outer addresses for session survivability for provider failure events. And in that case, well, you have the entire route-scaling problem in a nutshell. > > 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.] > No problem, I just think your argument above is incomplete. -Darrel _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
