Robin, While I am impressed with your stamina, I'll save folks time here and say that again I disagree with many of the premises that you believe.
- Translation schemes might make packets longer, depending on the design. Consider IPv4::IPv6 translation for example, where the packet header increases significantly in size. - We agree that tunnelling has various issues, but they are part of the architectural tradeoffs for the group to evaluate. All proposed approaches have tradeoffs, as near as I can tell. % This looks like a robust theoretical argument why a router-based % translation scheme can never be efficient or robust unless it uses % duplicate address space - which means such an approach % cannot be practical for IPv4. Kindly consider NAT/NAPT/similar devices, which many folks dislike, but which continue to be widely deployed and used -- with many folks finding the tradeoffs acceptable, the deployment efficient enough and robust enough. These boxes are fundamentally translation systems and are a counter-example for your bold claim quoted above. Cheers, Ran -- 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
