Subject: [rrg] Fwd: [BEHAVE] draft-mrw-behave-nat66-00.txt is now posted

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 29 Oct 2008 13:09:44 +0100

I've once again fallen behind on RRG discussions but from the  
subject:s I suspect that the renumbering discussion is still going  
strong.

With NAT66 as proposed in this draft (which is stateless transport- 
agnostic 1-to-1) part of renumbering could become easier, so perhaps  
we should discuss the notion of changing the IP architecture such that  
addresses may change in transit. Maybe we can find some time for this  
in Minneapolis? (Please note that I'm not interested in discussing the  
draft itself, but rather the consequences for routing scalability and  
the solutions to make routing scale.)

Begin forwarded message:

> A new version of I-D, draft-mrw-behave-nat66-00.txt has been  
> successfuly submitted by Margaret Wasserman and posted to the IETF  
> repository.
>
> Filename:	 draft-mrw-behave-nat66
> Revision:	 00
> Title:		 IPv6-to-IPv6 Network Address Translation (NAT66)
> Creation_date:	 2008-10-27
> WG ID:		 Independent Submission
> Number_of_pages: 13
>
> Abstract:
> This document describes a stateless, transport-agnostic IPv6-to-IPv6
> Network Address Translation (NAT66) function that provides the
> address independence benefit associated with IPv4-to-IPv4 NAT (NAT44)
> while minimizing, but not completely eliminating, the problems
> associated with NAT44.
>
> This document also describes an address mapping option for NAT66 that
> offers the topology hiding benefit associated with NAT44 at the cost
> of additional state in the NAT66 device.
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2008 09:17:10 +1300

Iljitsch,

I think we already discussed that, since it is the essence of
a true loc/id split. (Yes, I'm implying that map-encap is a
fake loc/id split.) But actually doing it is hardly part of
the routing system - it amounts to saying that changing the
routing system is too hard, so we'll do something else.

That might be a good conclusion, but I think it would
mean chartering a new RG with a different constituency.

http://tools.ietf.org/id/draft-irtf-nsrg-report-10.txt
says

"  One of the questiones addressed by the NSRG is: Does the TCP/IP
   protocol suite need an additional level of naming above layer 3 but
   below the application layer?  There was no consensus on the answer.  "

    Brian

On 2008-10-30 01:09, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> I've once again fallen behind on RRG discussions but from the subject:s
> I suspect that the renumbering discussion is still going strong.
> 
> With NAT66 as proposed in this draft (which is stateless
> transport-agnostic 1-to-1) part of renumbering could become easier, so
> perhaps we should discuss the notion of changing the IP architecture
> such that addresses may change in transit. Maybe we can find some time
> for this in Minneapolis? (Please note that I'm not interested in
> discussing the draft itself, but rather the consequences for routing
> scalability and the solutions to make routing scale.)
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
>