On Nov 9, 2009, Scott Brim 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 assumes no changes to hosts and no pinning of routing.
Right, fail-over support in hosts would enable session continuity. Thus, NAT would be used in combination with Shim6, Six/One, the name-oriented stack, or something similar. (Don't know what you mean by "pinning of routing", though.) An attractive property of this combination of solutions, deployment- wise, is the alignment of benefits and costs: The network operator pays for provider-independent addressing, by setting up a NAT. The host pays for improved session robustness, by upgrading to fail-over support. And importantly, there is no dependency between the new network support and the new host support. Either one would work without the other. (Though fail-overs still depend on support at the remote peer.) Without intending to sales-pitch this particular combination of solutions, I think its alignment of benefits and costs is key. - Christian _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
