North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Tony Li
  • Date: Sun Oct 16 02:27:29 2005

but when similar things were proposed
at other meetings, somebody always said "no! we have to have end- to-end,
and if we'd wanted nat-around-every-net we'd've stuck with IPv4."
Is VJ compression considered a violation of the "end-to-end" principle?

Or perhaps I misunderstand (yet again).

Paul is correct. Things that looked like NAT were rejected because "NAT is evil". Shifting the NAT to end system removed the objection to NAT, tho it's not entirely clear why. Shifting NAT to the end system also happened to simplify the entire solution as well.

VJ compression should not be considered a violation of the "end-to- end" principle, as it is a per-link hack and performs a function that CANNOT be performed in the end systems. However, I'm not entirely sure that this is relevant. NAT is not, strictly speaking, a violation of the end-to-end principle. It certainly is rather ugly and awkward from an architectural perspective, but it is a function that is not otherwise required in the end host, so placing it into the network does not violate the letter of the principle. Perhaps this is yet another case where people misunderstand the principle itself and are invoking it to give a name to their (well placed) architectural distaste.