Re: [v4v6interim] [46translation] [BEHAVE] NAT66 for PI [Re: Proposal for new BEHAVEcharter]

no, at least I don't think so.

HIP tries to provide what RFC 1498 and 1753 call an "endpoint ID", but  
provides no way to associate locators with it. Hence, while from an  
application perspective it enables the application to ensure that the  
system or service it is talking with is the one it intends to, it  
doesn't enable the transport to select an address pair to use in  
routing - and yes, the choice of a source and a destination address  
has the effect of routing a session, as it determines important points  
that the datagram will transit.

Read all of RFCs 1483, 1753, 1992, http://ana.lcs.mit.edu/~jnc/tech/endpoints.txt 
, and http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-nsrg-report for a complete  
discussion of the problem. Getting network folks and application folks  
to describe the problem is a little like describing the elephant -  
each only describes part.

On Oct 26, 2008, at 3:37 AM, Marc Petit-Huguenin wrote:

> Brian E Carpenter wrote:
>> On 2008-10-21 00:26, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
>> ...
>>>>> 4/ prefix delegation "bypass"
>>>>>
>>>>> (1) is a non-issue for IPv6. (2) is solved with stateful  
>>>>> firewalling and
>>>>> does not require NAT. 1:1 NAT fails to solve (3) as it does hide  
>>>>> the
>>>>> subnetting scheme, but fails to hide individual hosts. This  
>>>>> leaves only
>>>>> (4). Did I miss anything?
>>>> I think one main reason would be provider independence (ie. no  
>>>> need to
>>>> renumber)  for small sites that cannot afford to have thier own PI
>>>> address block allocated
>>> That's prefix delegation/routing bypass.
>>
>> Yes. It avoids renumbering, and allows multihoming. It's very hard
>> to stop this unless the RRG comes up with a miracle solution
>> in the near future.
>
> Doesn't HIP solve this problem?
>
> -- 
> Marc Petit-Huguenin           [                                 ]
> Home: marc@petit-huguenin.org [RFC1855-compliant space for rent ]
> Work: marc@8x8.com            [                                 ]
> [                                                               ]
> _______________________________________________
> 46translation mailing list
> 46translation@employees.org
> https://www.employees.org/mailman/listinfo/46translation

_______________________________________________
v4v6interim mailing list
v4v6interim@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/v4v6interim