Re: [Int-area] L. Eggert's comment (draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios)

[Joe Touch <[e-mail]>]

I'd like to add some context from my viewpoint:

On 7/23/2014 5:32 AM, [e-mail] wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> Lars raised a point about
> draft-boucadair-intarea-host-identifier-scenarios that is basically to
> question whether it is worth continuing this effort if no viable
> solutions can be designed to solve this problem.
>
> I do agree this is a fair point. I have several comments to make here:
>
> ·The lack of a recommendation in RFC6967 should not be interpreted as
> there is no working solution.

Agreed. The WG decided not to make a recommendation - but that also 
means that the analysis in that doc should not be taken as a 
recommendation either. This doc claims that RFC6967 says that a TCP 
solution may be possible, but that was based on only one candidate TCP 
approach *and* the TCP approach was considered roughly equivalent to 5 
of the other 7 approaches.

> ·The analysis in RFC6967 is specific to particular cases that span many
> administrative domains (read CGN). So, the drawbacks of several
> solutions discussed in RFC6967 are irrelevant for scenarios that are
> restricted to a single administrative domain (or where an administrative
> relationship is setup between involved parties).

Or behind home NATs.

Joe