On Sun, 14 Feb 2010, Robin Whittle wrote:
His proposal is intended to let a NAT box serve
more hosts from a single IPv4 address, by way
of providing new versions of TCP and UDP (SCTP?)
with 32 bit port numbers.
Paul states that his proposal would be the basis
for a CEE routing scaling solution, but no CEE
architecture works with IPv4 - and none work with
hosts behind NAT.
I don't think that's a fair characterisation at all of what I was
suggesting. Indeed, it's completely at odds with what I was
suggesting in the blog entry (I may have started with speculating
about transport protocol level hacks, but that's not where my
reasoning ended up). Also, it seems you're using NAT like "NAT, as
NAT is today" - rather than "NAT, in the general 'rewrite' sense" or
"NAT, but 2-way", which is how it ends up in what I was considering.
The suggestion is, in a nutshell:
1. Deploy an IP option that effectively adds a secondary ID space to
the packet
Step 1 can happen because ISPs and consumers will perceive a growing
problem, due to pressures on port space with NAT (NAT being the only
thing people really care about in the short-term, being the
assumption). Presume about 5 years to get this deployed and iron out
whatever problems with core routers (i.e. pretty much same problem
facing IPv6..).
2. Someone recognises that with a new address family you could allow
2-way connectivity between these secondary ID spaces.
3. Someone takes approaches from LISP and Shim protocols and adds
protocols to make the seconday<->middle-box mapping dynamic.
It /starts/ with solving a problem /for/ NAT. It ends up with a
system that implements a "locator scope change" boundary between the
core internet and a peripheral address space.
Further, I don't claim this is a well-specified system or a good one.
I'm trying to illustrate what could happen if none of the
well-engineered proposals from the IETF, IRTF, etc end up being
adopted, and trying to think what could happen if people instead go
for 'cheap hacks' that don't particularly try to generally fix
routing on the internet..
What I'm saying is that even the cheap hacks (even ones to make
something as yucky as NAT work better) could potentially form a basis
for something that could, in time (a long time perhaps), evolve in to
a "fix routing on the internet" system.
Take it as you will.
regards,
--
Paul Jakma p...@jakma.org Key ID: 64A2FF6A
Fortune:
Harrisberger's Fourth Law of the Lab:
Experience is directly proportional to the amount of equipment ruined.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
rrg@irtf.org
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
