Re: Revised NSAPA mapping (fwd)

[William Allen Simpson <[e-mail]>]

> From: [e-mail] (Brian Carpenter   CERN-CN)
> I posted this on tuba for comments from NSAPA experts and on sipp
> as an FYI since there is an older version in the new ROAD draft.
> I didn't post it on big-i because I specifically don't see any point
> in re-starting a discussion we had a few weeks ago. I posted a whole
> set of arguments why mappings are necessary at that time.
> You don't accept them; that's fine, this is the IETF.
>
I don't know how such an "older version" could be in the SIPP drafts,
since there was no previous request from you on the SIPP list.

I do not much care for private go-arounds when your idea was previously
rejected in a broader forum.  That is why I brought it back to the forum
in which it belongs.

Based on your claim, I searched for your posting "a few weeks ago".
You have no such postings in the past 3 weeks.

However, you did have a _single_ B-I posting on mapping 6 weeks ago:
> Date: Wed, 15 Jun 1994 08:23:28 +0200 (MET DST)

Your request for algorithmic mapping correctly identifies a number of
serious pitfalls.  We seemed to agree (within a remarkably short series
of messages for B-I) that your algorithmic mapping would not work
"unless a complete set of routing protocols exist to support it,"
and would be limited to "a small set of consenting subscribers."

Your request for algorithmic mapping does not even _mention_ any of the
points I questioned.  So, I will answer them myself.

 1) There are no widely deployed TCP over CLNP applications.

 2) There are no foo over CLNP applications that cannot be better done
    as TCP/IP, with the same or less effort of creating a new CLNP
    mapping/translating infrastructure.

 3) There are no CLNP-based applications that interoperate with TCP/IP
    applications.  All such require application gateways.

Therefore, we have no interest wasting IPng address space for mapping
NSAPs to support these non-existant applications.

 4) So-called "integrated" routing protocols such as IDRP already
    support routing NSAPs separately from IP.  There is no need to
    develop "a complete set of routing protocols" to map and route NSAPs
    together with IPng.

 5) Algorithmic mapping is not required for tunnelling between "a small
    set of consenting subscribers."  The same configuration tables used
    by BGP should suffice.

Therefore, we have no interest wasting IPng bandwidth and development
effort for mapping NSAPs to support these non-existant routing needs.

[e-mail]