Re: Stupid NAT tricks and how to stop them.

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On Tue, Mar 28, 2006 04:12:24PM -0500, Noel Chiappa allegedly wrote:
>     >>> locators are a lot easier to deal with if they're
>     >>> location-independent
> 
>     >> Huh? Did you mean "identifiers are a lot easier to deal with
>     >> if they're location-independent"?
> 
>     > I really was talking about locators, not identifiers.
> 
> Now that I understand what you actually meant, I'm not freaked out!
> However, you phrased your point in a way that almost guaranteed
> confusion!
> 
> You didn't mean "locators are a lot easier to deal with if the name
> has nothing to do with where the thing it names is", you meant
> "locators are a lot easier to deal with if their meaning (i.e. the
> thing they are bound to) is the same no matter where you are when
> you evaluate them".

This is a problem for PIP-like schemes and mobility.  At any point in
the network, the locator to use to reach a particular target is
unique.  However, the locator to use to reach a particular target is
different at every point.  That would be okay except that when *I*
move, the way I address a target changes.  That's more of a problem
than having to adjust as my target moves.

_______________________________________________

Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]