[rrg] solution strategies, nat?

[William Herrin]

Ran,

Please understand, I am neither for nor against the use of NAT as a
route reduction technique. I do, however, insist on me being able to
satisfactorily explain how a particular approach would reduce the need
or demand for core routing slots. Until someone, such as yourself, has
explained that to me well enough that I can explain it to someone
else, it isn't gong in the document.


On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 8:49 AM, RJ Atkinson <rja at extremenetworks.com> wrote:
> On  31 Dec 2008, at 20:15, William Herrin wrote:
>> I would like to hear about additional NAT-based techniques which, like
>> Chris' notion, suggest a credible plan for reducing the demand for
>> core routing slots compared to the status quo.
>
> I cited "NAT66" specifically.

It is not immediately obvious to me how any form of NAT66 reduces the
demand for core routing slots. If it's obvious to you, I'm listening.


> I also specifically cited "architected NAT", where there is
> a concrete specification that has particular properties.

Would you suggest a reference which describes "architected NAT"? The
first 20 hits on google led to offhand comments which were
unrevealing.


> Thirdly, I've talked in the past about how Locator rewriting
> (which is a kind of NAT) could be used with ILNP.  This is a bit
> similar to Six/One, but is not identical.  This is discussed
> in detail in various published papers.

Link please?



>> We have determined beyond the shadow of a doubt
>> that the status quo is not, at this time, self-reducing.
>
> Under IRTF process rules, only the RG Chairs have the authority
> to make a consensus determination.

That is an... interesting... refutation of established fact.


Regards,
Bill Herrin



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004