On Nov 8, 2009, at 4:06 AM, Christian Vogt wrote:
On Nov 8, 2009, Brian E Carpenter 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 brings up a more general question: Should the RRG recommendation
be restricted to those solutions that RRG endorses?
please define "RRG endorses" here?
as I see it, RRG recommendation should reflect our best collective
understanding on what is the best solution to handle global routing
scalability problem, whatever that may be.
Or should it also
include solutions that have limitations, such as NAT66, along with an
explanation of those limitations?
Although the latter option is more a solution space analysis than a
"recommendation", it would in my opinion be more valuable to the IETF
because it would be more comprehensive. Thoughts?
[Something about not shooting messenger goes here.]
Jeez, better put this note to the beginning of your email. Putting it
at the end is risky. It might be too late. ;-)
- Christian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
