[rrg] Fundamental objections to a host-based scalable routing solution

[Steven Blake]

On Tue, 2008-11-25 at 07:32 +0200, Pekka Nikander wrote:

[Good stuff about HIP snipped]

> Now, clearly it does not help (from the RRG point of view) if the  
> other end doesn't use HIP at all, and AFAIK that cannot be easily fixed.  
> But there the RG seems to be going some sort-of NATted (NAT66?) way anyway....

Do you mean RRG?  I don't think there is any consensus to go towards
NAT66.

People in RRG Friday afternoon missed the NAT66 discussion in Behave.
To make a long story short: IPv6 NAT is happening in the market.  The
only questions for the IETF (IMHO) is whether or not to write a
specification for a more benign version (see draft-mrw-behave-nat66-01),
and whether or not to progress work to mitigate the damage.  


Regards,

// Steve