Subject: RE: (NAT) Extended IP tests.

From: "Spencer Dawkins" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 1999 08:32:20 -0600

But what if someone ever designs another peer-to-peer protocol? (only half
kidding)

Seriously - I attribute a lot of the non-deployment of Mobile-IP to the
client-server-ness of many protocols - if I initiate most/all of the
requests, who needs a fixed/known IP address? And this is the big advantage
of Mobile-IP over (say) accessing my corporate network from the IETF
Terminal Room using SSL tunnels or something similar.

I don't know that this is a Good Thing, but it's a Thing.

Brian - would this be a useful point to add to
http://www.ietf.cnri.reston.va.us/internet-drafts/draft-carpenter-transparen
cy-00.txt? I'm thinking in terms of pointing out that losing the notion of
meaningful IP addresses (that are globally unique, globally routable, and
not reused by various hosts) has tilted the Internet toward client-server
solutions, so that many end-user systems don't have the ability to do
peer-to-peer protocols, and this makes things like event notification more
difficult - basically, you can't count on finding the end-user, so you have
to count on the end-user finding you. I didn't see this discussed in the 00
draft. (And we can continue this conversation off the NAT list, I'm sure.)

Spencer

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Brian E Carpenter [SMTP:[email-masked]]
> Sent:	Thursday, April 01, 1999 4:45 AM
> To:	John Bartas
> Cc:	[email-masked]
> Subject:	Re: (NAT) Extended IP tests.
> 
> As hacks go, that's not bad.
> 
> Since we presume there will be far more clients than servers,
> how about saying that clients must be in 10/8, and servers
> must be in 172.16/12 or 192.168/16 ?
> 
>   Brian
> 
> John Bartas wrote:
> > 
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > At 04:12 PM 3/30/99 +0100, Brian E Carpenter wrote:
> > >John,
> > >
> > >What happens if both "linux" and "kermit" happen to have
> > >the address 10.0.0.20? This can of course happen when the
> > >two ends are in different, uncoordinated enterprise networks.
> > 
> >         Another idea on this - xNAt could specify certain private
> subnets for
> > hosts which are intended to be reachable from the public net. For
> example,
> > if any host intended to be accessable should be in the 10.254.0.0 net,
> then
> > most server machines would be 10.254.X.X, and most client machines would
> not.
> > 
> >         Machines which might want to be both client and sever, such
> Linux boxes,
> > could maintain 2 IPaddresses on their local net - one from each group.
> > 
> > >
> > >    Brian
> > >
> > -JB-
> > 
> > #############################################################
> >           H
> > (==)o(==) H John Bartas - Main Propeller head
> >    _I_    H InterNiche Technologies Inc. (408) 257-8014
> >   /   \   H 21801 Stevens Creek Blvd. Suite 5
> >   -----   H Cupertino, Ca. 95014
> >    O O    H [email-masked] (remove foo)
> >     "     H <http://www.iniche.com/>www.iniche.com
> >   \___/   H
> -
> To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
> 'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.
-
To unsubscribe, email [email-masked]' with
'unsubscribe nat' in the body of the message.

---

From: "Hasan S. Alkhatib" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 01 Apr 1999 09:06:46 -0800

Hi Spencer,

The point you are making about the loss of the notion that an IP address is
globally unique and globally routable is a serious one. IPv6 (if it ever gets
deployed!) solves this problem. But, the reality we are living is exactly what
you pointed out.

We have been focusing on a set of technical solutions to these problems based on
the use of a fully qualified domain name (FQDN) as the unique identifier of
terminal nodes on the Internet. This approach fits within the migration vision
towards IPv6, but in the mean time solves the problems of reachability on the
Internet in the context of IPv4.

Regards,
Hasan Alkhatib

---

From: John Bartas <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 02 Apr 1999 15:30:37 -0800

Hi all,

At 09:06 AM 4/1/99 -0800, you wrote:
>globally unique and globally routable is a serious one. 

	I agree with Hasan that loss of the notion that an IP address is globally
unique and globally routable is a serious one. However, since this is still
under the Extended IP subject, I'll chime in with the comment that the
extended IP addresses I proposed ARE globally unique as long as one knows
the whole address. The problem Brian brought up lies in the goal that
private address IPv4 machines should be able to use xNAT to reach other
private IPv4 machines, but these machines are only aware of the last
section (10.0.0.20 in the example) of the extended address. 

	However it's possible to add the extended address encapsulation logic to
the end nodes themselves, provided that either the source is open (as all
good systems now are :-) or a shim to do this can be inserted to supplement
the native IP stack. A local xNAT router just provides a way for unmodified
IPv4 "legacy" machines to use xNAT too. Putting the encapsulation code in
the host would fully address the peer-to-peer protocol issue that Spencer
Dawkins raised.

>IPv6 (if it ever gets

-JB-

-