Subject: RE: Site local

From: "Tony Li" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 4 Dec 2002 00:10:44 -0800

Kurt,

|   Ok, I am more or less with the idea of locator+identifier. 
|   What I am 
|   worried about is the effects of this on the applications.
|   
|   My main reason for being against anything that could lead 
|   down a NAT 
|   road (and I am worried that any attempt besides assigning global 
|   addresses everywhere will lead there) is that I have seen 
|   the effects 
|   this has had on delaying deployment of new services and creating 
|   problems at end sites.

Well, let's think about this a bit...  

Let's assume that the transport layer is going to use only the
identifier, not the locator.  So, for example, the identifier is
part of the TCP pseudo-header.  We also need to assume that the
(architecturally evil) applications that today carry around
IPv4 addresses would morph into carrying around identifiers, but
NOT locators.

If you're willing to stipulate to that, then NAT is not at all
necessary and the border routers do NOT need to know about specific
applications.

Make sense?

Tony

---

From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 6 Dec 2002 16:15:03 +0100

> necessary and the border routers do NOT need to know about specific

Well, yes. BUT, the problem comes with the applications. I can see 
applications where this could be an issue, and where this would not be 
an issue. I still think that what this group is discussing needs 
feedback from applications. We need someone (preferably from the 
applications area) to write a document on how the various suggestions 
would impact various application layer protocols.

- kurtis -