On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 10:42 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Mon, Nov 9, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Brian E Carpenter > <[email protected]> wrote: >> 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 >>> >>>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. > > Which is all well and good in the client case, but in the server case > requires both semantics in the DNS system which are not compatible > with current practice (i.e. applications must be aware of and actually > use the TTL) and try-next-address semantics which are different from > the current sockets API defaults (should try the next address with the > first SYN retransmit but shouldn't give up on attempts to any address > until one of them succeeds).
Correction: the latter is a client issue, so it's not all well and good in the client case either. Regards, Bill -- William D. Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004 _______________________________________________ rrg mailing list [email protected] http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
