Subject: RE: [[email-masked]: PI addressing in IPv6 advances in ARIN]

From: [email-masked] (Noel Chiappa)
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 07:50:32 -0400 (EDT)

> From: Terry Gray <[email-masked]>

    > Would you agree with the thesis that *without* pervasive PI, the future
    > of NAT (or some other mechanism for providing address autonomy to
    > organizations) is absolutely guaranteed forever (even with v6)?

The use of NAT to provide local addressing regions (to avoid the need to
renumber) is just a symptom of the fact that the architecture doesn't have
enough namespaces (and layers of binding between them).

But rather than fix that *real* problem, we'd rather go for easy kludges that
fix only a tiny part of the problem, and have minimal cost in the short term,
ignoring the fact that in the long term they create more problems than they
solve.

Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like a description of NAT too! Funny
thing about that...

    > It does make me wonder if there is any hope for resurrection of 8+8...

That's about as likely as the adoption of a restricted subset of the CLNP
specification, on which mandated a globally unique ID portion of the NSAP (I
think that was called TUBA, IIRC). That was rejected because it would be
incompatible with the installed base. The fact that in so rejecting it, that
decision doomed CLNP, was apparently not clearly obvious to everyone.

Now we hear that anything like 8+8 is infeasiable because it's incompatible
with the installed base (all 17 of them).

Hey, wait a minute...

	Noel

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 18 Apr 2006 17:13:38 +0200

> with the installed base (all 17 of them).

18 if the IETF would finally start eating its own dog food...

Let me observe once again that 8+8/GSE is incomplete because it  
doesn't provide a secure binding between the id and the loc, which is  
very necessary in a few places, and because it doesn't have any  
failover mechanisms. So even if compatibility with existing IPv6  
wouldn't be an issue, 8+8/GSE would need significant amounts of work.

But in the IETF compatibility with existing deployments is  
historically considered important (and even though IPv6 isn't  
deployed very widely, it's already in a lot of software and even some  
hardware so changing it now would create more problems than  
deployment figures suggest).

If you add security, failover and backward compatibility to 8+8/GSE  
you get something that looks a whole lot like shim6. The only part  
that's missing is rewriting locators by routers, which wouldn't be  
extremely hard to add to shim6 but since today's routers can't do it  
shim6 needs to work without this capability first.

And while I'm observing, the recent exchange between you and Keith is  
exactly the kind of stuff that makes making fundamental changes in  
our architecture and/or base protocols so hard as we saw in multi6:  
the routing, DNS, transport and application people all want someone  
else to suffer the pain caused by something new.