Subject: Re: NATs *ARE* evil!

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 16:02:25 -0500

> From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>

    > if you try to build a global network out of limited-scope addresses you
    > eventually end up reinventing IP at a higher layer. 

Err, did you perhaps mean "end up reinventing globally unique addresses
somewhere else in the system"? :-)

	Noel

<Another message from the Society for More Accurate Technical Terminology!>

---

From: Keith Moore <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 17 Dec 2000 23:21:17 -0500

> somewhere else in the system"? :-)

No.  I considered whether reinventing something more-or-less like IP was 
more likely than merely reinventing globally unique addresses, and decided
that it was...though it also seems likely that the "reinvented" IP would
be far less efficient than the one we have now.  

note however that this reflects my expectations/intuitions about what 
would be likely to happen, not what I think would be an ideal path.

but I'm fairly convinced that we are *far* better off with a global
name space for network attachment points, which are exposed and
visible to hosts and applications, than we are with only locally
scoped addresses visible to hosts and applications - and this is
regardless of whether we separate host identity from network location
or not.

Keith