> From: Terry Gray <gray@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Would you agree with the thesis that *without* pervasive PI, the future
> of NAT (or some other mechanism for providing address autonomy to
> organizations) is absolutely guaranteed forever (even with v6)?
The use of NAT to provide local addressing regions (to avoid the need to
renumber) is just a symptom of the fact that the architecture doesn't have
enough namespaces (and layers of binding between them).
But rather than fix that *real* problem, we'd rather go for easy kludges that
fix only a tiny part of the problem, and have minimal cost in the short term,
ignoring the fact that in the long term they create more problems than they
solve.
Hey, wait a minute, that sounds just like a description of NAT too! Funny
thing about that...
> It does make me wonder if there is any hope for resurrection of 8+8...
That's about as likely as the adoption of a restricted subset of the CLNP
specification, on which mandated a globally unique ID portion of the NSAP (I
think that was called TUBA, IIRC). That was rejected because it would be
incompatible with the installed base. The fact that in so rejecting it, that
decision doomed CLNP, was apparently not clearly obvious to everyone.
Now we hear that anything like 8+8 is infeasiable because it's incompatible
with the installed base (all 17 of them).
Hey, wait a minute...
Noel
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf