Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <[e-mail]>]

On 1 dec 2008, at 10:21, Fred Baker wrote:

> GSE/8+8 gives us the ability to manage the addresses we exchange in  
> routing down to a number of prefixes on the order of (eg equivalent  
> to a small multiple of) the number of autonomous systems.

Not really. Or rather, it will, at the following costs:

- all IPv6 implementations must be rewritten
- need an IPv6->GSE transition strategy but unlike v4->v6 addresses  
look the same
- still renumbering necessary when switching ISPs
- identity theft trivial unless we implement id<->locator security  
protocols
- no multihoming without extra protocols to detect and repair failures

See draft-ietf-ipngwg-esd-analysis-05.txt or
http://www.iab.org/about/workshops/routingandaddressing/routingws-gseproblems.pdf

As I've been saying for years: if you fix the problems with GSE, you  
end up with something that looks a lot like shim6.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf