Subject: Nimrod is still ugly - was: NATs *ARE* evil!

From: v guruprasad <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 14:30:33 -0500

> Were we to i) incrementally deploy and start using new globally unique
> namespace(s) [either a single one functioning much as IPv4 addresses
> functioned originaly, or, as many of us think would be wise, two separate
> ones, one to identify entities for end-end communication and another to give
> topologically related names to communication devices], and then ii)
> reinterpret the 32-bit fields as "local forwarding tags", then NAT boxes
> would cease to be an architectural ugliness, and become merely engineering
> ugliness.
> 
> "I trust I make myself obscure." (And a tip of the hatly hat to anyone who
> recognizes the source of that quotation... :-)
> 
>         Noel

Now that we've figured out the first step and admit to the remaining
ugliness, maybe we can take the next... Here goes:

One basic reason Nimrod is still ugly is that it leaves us to deal with real
addresses. The art of doling out virtual addresses and doing virtual-to-real
translation behind the scenes, and quite efficiently at that, has been known
in the OS arena for over three decades. Even PC OS's have it today :)

Isn't it time to graduate to the network analogue?  Yes, it takes a mental
leap - even binary search isn't as simple as linear, let alone Unix to the
DOS-groomed. But if you want performance, scalability and elegance, it's
possible, it's already shown, and it's waiting for the brave new world.
Far more importantly, which point is sorely missed in the Triad and Nimrod
proposals and where the real mental leaps comes, it doesn't require throwing
the v4 (or v6) baby out with the scummy bathwater.

["and still the earth moves"]

-p.