IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [nat66] A bit of perspective

Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com> Mon, 03 May 2010 21:29 UTC

Return-Path: <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: nat66@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id E7A373A6B69 for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 May 2010 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.052
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.052 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.053, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id WhR3MhyTWX3H for <nat66@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 3 May 2010 14:29:06 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-wy0-f172.google.com (mail-wy0-f172.google.com [74.125.82.172]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D9B1A28C276 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Mon, 3 May 2010 14:28:59 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by wyb32 with SMTP id 32so82379wyb.31 for <nat66@ietf.org>; Mon, 03 May 2010 14:28:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from :organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=J23i7u0LG+G6QpO6mSqvzP5YZH7cm4srWhNMzhC4q54=; b=TK7XRcGGHP/DuZ/WRakFe9NC1/rhGLwukqVK3E0q8tvDiLHUToKJ4Ihnaz+cVSI1QP 1GUYPX4W4c7YiRvdktdXmlgJjFl+jxtuGWP+nORoxuU4Mn/so9Ek1RWHdRDkCz2AGXib HtJh4j+2GrrEJd9ukGiNEF6yfzfD6vTjwhAfg=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:organization:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; b=epQgkIeoUPTBmW5M6q1H152/eXl7TzUxXZQTnHEy9zfPp5udeUFqCU0bR+sFRA0b4+ aoAjCe8M27wypZYuzBD3HGHdKdOEWYvAz7NWLoWJTb+4k0R6BE3Endgf9SB3Ulqm6GSx p+f0VmJrAztmiwbXyjpLOx6O9/SWtC4D4MUME=
Received: by 10.216.85.198 with SMTP id u48mr2808683wee.225.1272922120853; Mon, 03 May 2010 14:28:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [130.216.38.124] (stf-brian.sfac.auckland.ac.nz [130.216.38.124]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x9sm545913wej.9.2010.05.03.14.28.37 (version=SSLv3 cipher=RC4-MD5); Mon, 03 May 2010 14:28:39 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <4BDF4001.8080209@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 09:28:33 +1200
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>
Organization: University of Auckland
User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.6 (Windows/20070728)
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Darrel Lewis <darlewis@cisco.com>
References: <F55FF9C4FDB76643AE0CEC06D0F5CEB3048D8EA65C@Skyhawk> <A083B058-655A-4417-A779-9D3426FC6AFE@cisco.com> <707233BB-C1C8-4BF1-9D70-10C1E7C98936@cisco.com> <7D19C00A-5294-4B6A-9B62-D114A28F4710@cisco.com>
In-Reply-To: <7D19C00A-5294-4B6A-9B62-D114A28F4710@cisco.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: NAT66 <nat66@ietf.org>, Keith Moore <moore@network-heretics.com>
Subject: Re: [nat66] A bit of perspective
X-BeenThere: nat66@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: "List for discussion of IPv6-to-IPv6 NAT." <nat66.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/nat66>
List-Post: <mailto:nat66@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66>, <mailto:nat66-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 03 May 2010 21:29:07 -0000

On 2010-05-04 07:34, Darrel Lewis wrote:
> Shim6 is very different from LISP.  Shim6 is implemented in the host, and LISP in the CPE router (like, for example, NAT66 would be).  Shim6 seems to have more in common to ILNP than LISP.

That's true if your helicopter is hovering at about 250 metres.
But if you take it up to half a kilometre, all these solutions
are isomorphic, in the sense that prefixes for multimhomed sites
are no longer visible in BGP4; whether they are eliminated
in the host or at the ISP ingress doesn't matter to the core.

The one property that separates stateless NAT66 (which is not NAPT)
from shim6, ILNP and LISP is that the end to end address as seen by
transport protocols gets changed.

However, I agree with Fred: on *this* list we should talk about
draft-mrw-behave-nat66. We could start with a naming competition.

   Brian

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email