On Oct 20, 2008, at 5:54 PM, Tony Li wrote:
|> Your talk asked
|> "13 years have passed
|> How well does the above
|> still apply/not apply today?"
|>
|> I fear that the answer is 100%. Was there any clear outcome from
|> the discussion?
|
|Van said NAT was a bad idea and urged people to not use it as a
|solution.
Yet, what other solutions are there? 13 years have passed and
renumbering
is still verboten. 13 years have passed and the only possible
solutions
that we have in hand all are either a form of NAT or incorporate NAT.
The only alternative is to perform the brain surgery on the
architecture to
allow dynamic renumbering, and no one wants to bite that off either.
Our choices are to NAT or renumber, and we seem unwilling to choose
either.
I would like to add another solution, map-and-encap (without
renumber), which
seems holding best promise to me.
Lixia
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
