[rrg] adm plea: avoid/reduce massive cross-posting? (was: Can we have on NAT66 discussion?)

[Lixia Zhang]

this thread has been posted to *4* mailing list.
not sure whether other list adm had the same issue, but rrg adm keeps  
getting lots non-member posting warnings ... so the msg would not get  
delivered without manual intervention (i.e. defeating the intention of  
cross posting)

wonder if there is a better way out...

Lixia (not complaining, just raising an awareness:)


On Nov 13, 2008, at 8:51 AM, Scott Brim wrote:

> On 11/13/08 10:06 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip allegedly wrote:
>>
>> I beleive that the question would not arise If we had a coherent
>> Internet architecture
>>
>> The idea that an application can or should care that the IP address  
>> of a
>> packet is constant from source to destination is plain bonkers. It  
>> was
>> no an assumption in the original Internet architecture and should  
>> not be
>> an assumption that any application should rely on.
>
> That's not the problem.  The issue is location.  Once we have
> established a session then how the packets are labeled for network  
> layer
> purposes doesn't matter much (modulo security) but how do we get
> communications set up in the first place?  Suppose I want to reach
> "foo".  Who do I ask to find a locator for him?  Split DNS works fine
> when there are just two states, inside and outside -- a DNS server can
> be configured to know how to respond in each case.  But if you were to
> sprinkle NATs all over the Internet there would be no place that could
> give a confident answer about how I, over here, should name foo in the
> network layer in order to get a packet to him, and have that answer  
> get
> to me in the correct form.  So it is very important to understand  
> where
> we think it might be safe to put what kinds of NATs.
>
> swb