Re: Nimrod is still ugly - was: NATs *ARE* evil!
V Guruprasad <prasad@watson.ibm.com> Mon, 18 December 2000 12:10 UTC
Received: by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) id HAA07804 for ietf-outbound.10@ietf.org; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:10:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: from igw8.watson.ibm.com (igw8.watson.ibm.com [198.81.209.20]) by ietf.org (8.9.1a/8.9.1a) with SMTP id HAA07781 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:09:20 -0500 (EST)
Received: from sp1n189at0.watson.ibm.com (sp1n189at0.watson.ibm.com [9.2.104.62]) by igw8.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/05-14-1999) with ESMTP id HAA15442; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:09:14 -0500
Received: from bubble.watson.ibm.com (bubble.watson.ibm.com [9.2.215.93]) by sp1n189at0.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/Feb-20-98) with ESMTP id HAA18054; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:09:13 -0500
Received: (from prasad@localhost) by bubble.watson.ibm.com (8.9.3/8.9.3/04/21/2000) id HAA13611; Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:09:12 -0500
Date: Mon, 18 Dec 2000 07:09:12 -0500
From: V Guruprasad <prasad@watson.ibm.com>
To: "J. Noel Chiappa" <jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Cc: ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Nimrod is still ugly - was: NATs *ARE* evil!
Message-ID: <20001218070912.A13590@bubble.watson.ibm.com>
References: <200012152250.RAA15146@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.2i
In-Reply-To: <200012152250.RAA15146@ginger.lcs.mit.edu>; from jnc@ginger.lcs.mit.edu on Fri, Dec 15, 2000 at 17:50:06 -0500
X-Loop: ietf@ietf.org
> If you find a way to select paths in real networks using only virtual data, > 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.
- Nimrod is still ugly - was: NATs *ARE* evil! v guruprasad
- Re: Nimrod is still ugly - was: NATs *ARE* evil! J. Noel Chiappa
- Re: Nimrod is still ugly - was: NATs *ARE* evil! V Guruprasad