On 2009-11-09 21:42, Darrel Lewis (darlewis) 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 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.
That's if you want session survivability. If you sacrifice that requirement, the outer address can be PA. That's probably the strongest argument against this as a way forward, if you get over NAT hatred. Brian > >> 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
