North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: route ingress
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 things. > 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. Sean.