From: Stig Venaas (Stig.Venaas_at_no.spam)
Date: Tue Mar 19 2002 - 07:35:33 PST
On Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 02:16:50AM -0500, Bound, Jim wrote:
> thats good logic and I can't refute it. and we cannot change the DSTM
> assumptions that would be unacceptable. The assumption is really a
> deployment strategy and thats the whole point of DSTM. So if we cannot
> make any DSTM option support that assumption in my view the option is
> DEAD.
>
> but why not at least discuss the other benefit which is this.
>
> with the port option is it possible to give the user back e2e with its
> limited IPv4 address space. Kind of like right-sizing a bad situation
> and helping the user along.
> Just in case they cannot move to a pure Native IPv6 network till say
> 2005.
I agree the port option is a bit ugly, but it's much much better than
NAT which would be the alternative. If someone has enough IPv4 addresses
they shouldn't use this option. If you have very few IPv4 addresses, you
may be forced to share an address between multiple hosts. Doing this the
DSTM+port/RSIP way breaks very few applications compared to NAT(-PT).
In particular addresses and ports embedded in the application protocol
is less of a problem. I think much of what is said about RSIP in RFC
3103 also applies to DSTP+port.
Stig
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.7 : Fri Oct 06 2006 - 00:00:31 PDT