On Mon, 1 Dec 2008, Christian Huitema wrote:
>
> have we seriously consider flat host based routing in a corporate
> network? A combination of DHT and caching technologies ought to make
> that quite scalable.
http://100x100network.org/papers/myers-hotnets2004.pdf
"Rethinking the Service Model: Sca
On Dec 1, 2008, at 10:41 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat
host based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and
caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.
We built a number of networks like those in the
you might take a look at he nat66 document and the behave IPv4/IPv6
documents. they're pretty different.
On Dec 1, 2008, at 7:07 PM, Christian Huitema wrote:
Of course, Iljitsch points an interesting issue. If NAT66 behaves
exactly like, say, NAT 64, then why would the organization bother to
> > Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host
> > based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and
> > caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.
>
> I've used large, flat networks, and lived to regret it
Do we have a documentation somewhe
Christian Huitema wrote:
> > I'm not sure I believe in the need for topology hiding. But if I
> did,
> > on v6 I'd just allocate a separate subnet or group of subnets for
> > external access. If really necessary, have such hosts set up IP over
> > IP or L2TP tunnels to a concentrator; that will m
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:41:37 -0800
Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host
> based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and
> caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.
I've used large, flat n
> I'm not sure I believe in the need for topology hiding. But if I did,
> on v6 I'd just allocate a separate subnet or group of subnets for
> external access. If really necessary, have such hosts set up IP over
> IP or L2TP tunnels to a concentrator; that will make this external
> access net look
On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 19:07:35 -0800
Christian Huitema <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> GSE/8+8 also does not achieve topology hiding, not if the mapping
> between internal and external /64 is a one-one. Of course, you could
> smash multiple internal subnets to a single /64 external view, but
> then you
> > GSE/8+8 gives us the ability to manage the addresses we exchange in
> > routing down to a number of prefixes on the order of (eg equivalent
> > to a small multiple of) the number of autonomous systems.
>
> Not really. Or rather, it will, at the following costs:
>
> - all IPv6 implementations mu
On 1 dec 2008, at 10:21, Fred Baker wrote:
GSE/8+8 gives us the ability to manage the addresses we exchange in
routing down to a number of prefixes on the order of (eg equivalent
to a small multiple of) the number of autonomous systems.
Not really. Or rather, it will, at the following costs
I'll repeat what said in behave a few days ago. I think this
capability actually gives the e2e guys (whom I count myself among) 99%
of what they are looking for while giving rrg-etc, which is to say
"the ISPs", 99% of what they're looking for.
GSE/8+8 gives us the ability to manage the add
end is
more important.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] on behalf of Tony Hain
Sent: Wed 11/26/2008 6:16 PM
To: 'David Morris'
Cc: 'IETF Discussion'
Subject: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto
applicationdevelopers
D
12 matches
Mail list logo
