> > 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
Right, I just wanted to make sure we were comparing apples to apples. -Darrel _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
