North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: route ingress

  • From: Sean M. Doran
  • Date: Thu Jan 08 09:29:09 1998

Vadim Antonov <[email protected]> writes:

> I quite agree with that (though i'm not convinced that "bottom->top"
> allocation combined with recursive NATting is the best architecture).

Randy Bush once made the comment that I live in a number
of possible future Internets.  These are two possibilities, not one.

The variable-length bottom->top hierarchical network
addressing scheme I prefer eliminates the need for
translation of transport addresses.  The hard work is in
resolving endpoint name to transport address.

NAT is only needed in the case where address uniqueness
and routability is not inherently guaranteed by the
transport addressing structure.

Recursive NAT is only needed in the case where the size of
a catenet is such that a number of intercommunicating
NAT-using routing super domains in aggregate use more than
the entire available address space.

NAT buys us the time to investigate technologies
considerably different from IP while retaining IP as the
lingua franca.  Recursive NAT buys time in the face of
people who try to make the argument (since demolished by
HWB's graphics, I think, yes?) that we really are under
pressure to increase the number of potentially addressable

> However, this does not preclude doing authentication with the current
> routing system.

Yes, I agree completely.  However the current routing
system sure doesn't make doing that easy.