Here's the thing... IPv4 is already irremediably broken by NAT (i.e. all upper layer designs must already allow for
I know what you mean, but saying IPv4 is broken is a bit strong. I'd argue you should thank NATs for allowing the Internet to scale to what it is today in terms of the number of hosts that can talk to each other.
IPv4 NAT, or even worse NAPT). So if the LISP transition for IPv4 sites includes NAT, it really isn't a new problem for the upper layers.
Right.
However, it would be sad if LISP required NAT for IPv6, since the reality is that we're looking at this whole
Well since we have more address space, and it's not out of the question of getting a /8 or /16 of EID-space, PTRs look attractive.
Do you think so?
class of solutions (and shim6) precisely to avoid the need for NAT. In fact, although I don't fully agree with draft-rosenberg-internet-waist-hourglass, it does point us in the direction of needing a complete new identity system at layer 4, if we end up breaking IPv6 with NAT too.
Don't you think a mass PI allocation scheme is going to break IPv6 if we don't do anything about it?
Dino -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
