Subject: Re: [lisp] LISP Interworking: Proxy Egress Tunnel Routers

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 2009 01:43:46 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Robin Whittle <[email-masked]>

    >> The ITR will have to have a global unicast address, but that does not
    >> prevent it being behind a NAT - it just has to figure out what the
    >> _NAT_'s global unicast address is, and register that as the RLOC
    >> associated with the EIDs which which that ITR is responsible.

    > Is this formally specified anywhere yet?

Don't think so, but I'm not sure.

    > It seems unworkable to me that an ITR would have to figure out the
    > address of its NAT box.

It's pretty easy, actually; if I'm remembering correctly, when a Map-Register
message arrives at a Map-Server, you can tell from the fact that the source
address in the outer IPvN header doesn't match the ITR's RLOC inside the
packet that it's behind a NAT, and what the NAT's global address is. (Or
something like that...)

	Noel

---

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Mon, 21 Sep 2009 13:14:08 -0400 (EDT)

> From: "Joel M. Halpern" <[email-masked]>

    > First, some assumptions I make:

Good set.

    > For PTRs and PETRs

Minor terminology nit: I've been suggesting that we call these things
PITRs and PETRs, so the terms have symmetry.

    > The distinction I draw is between that and "a thorough set of
    > possible business models." We are not trying to explore the space of
    > business models ... I think we need to convince ourselves that the
    > business model has enough solidity that it may succeed. After that,
    > the experiments should help us tell who is interested, and what the
    > actual costs are, etc... Our initial evaluation needs to look at
    > overall incentives and overall costs, not details of business models.

Exactly.

	Noel