On 08/02/2005 16:58 PM, James Kempf allegedly wrote: > Pekka, > > I agree with Joe and Tony. Tunnels are a tool for virtualizing the address > space. If you are going to propose that they are a flawed tool, then I think > you need to propose an alternative that has "better" (for some sense of the > word) properties. The only alternative I can think of (swapping IP > addresses in the header, i.e. NAT) is worse, but maybe there are other > alternatives.
This is where I come down. I was revolted when tunnels became architecture (I believe I argued with Steve Deering about it in Santa Fe), and I used to think of MPLS as a sign of shortcomings in IP routing and addressing, but since then requirements have changed. We now have to handle "network of networks" scenarios, where you need complete isolation of client and server "networks". We could invent other ways to do this, but in the end they would have the features we currently call "tunnels". As an exercise it would be good to explore thinking about these mechanisms as other than "tunnels". Perhaps a different conceptual view would be a better base for going forward architecturally. swb _______________________________________________ Int-area mailing list [email protected] https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/int-area
