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

From: "J. Noel Chiappa" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 17:50:06 -0500

> From: v guruprasad <[email-masked]>

    > One basic reason Nimrod is still ugly is that it leaves us to deal with
    > real addresses.

If you find a way to select paths in real networks using only virtual data,
we'd all be interested to hear it.

	Noel

PS: The issues of i) globally/locally unique addresses (i.e. NAT), and ii)
separation of location and identity, have nothing to do with the selection of
paths. So why you think there's some reason to drag in a scheme that is purely
about path selection is completely beyond me.

---

From: V Guruprasad <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:09:12 -0500

> we'd all be interested to hear it.

Try draft-guruprasad-addressless-internet-00.txt, and
the ECUMN'2000 paper on which it was based, at
	http://affine.watson.ibm.com/tmp/vinet.pdf

The draft doesn't yet mention the log(N) bounds on the routing complexity,
but I did try to explain that real addresses are obviated at all levels. 
A detailed comparison of addressing and addressless principles is yet to
be made, hopefully soon in the next revision and/or paper.

-p.