ietf
[Top] [All Lists]

RE: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

2009-03-22 14:28:22
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Brim [mailto:swb(_at_)employees(_dot_)org] 
Sent: Sunday, March 22, 2009 10:53 AM
To: Dan Wing
Cc: 'Brian E Carpenter'; 'Iljitsch van Beijnum'; 'IAB'; 'IETF 
Discussion Mailing List'; 'Lixia Zhang'
Subject: Re: Comment on draft-iab-ipv6-nat-00

Dan Wing allegedly wrote on 03 22 2009 10:09 AM:
When one of these NATs goes down, active connections will be
lost, but IGP routing will switch users automatically to a
different NAT when they retry.

If you allow your hosts to use multiple connection points into the 
Internet, and external routing changes so that the packets they
send go out different connection points, their apparent source
address can change.  One of the requirements for effective use of
NAT and multihoming is that your hosts' peers need to handle this
(via Multipath, HIP, MIP, SCTP or whatever).  That is, you can't
allow your hosts to use multiple connection points until everyone
_else_ they talk to has been upgraded.  How will you know when that
is?

A host knows if it is using HIP, MIP, or SCTP to communicate with 
another host.  

I was asking how the site knows when its hosts peers have 
been upgraded,
so that it can allow their traffic to be routed out multiple 
interfaces.

Thinking out loud, I posit that IPv6 route headers might be useful to 
steer traffic to a specific NAT66, until the host indicates (to the 
network) that it doesn't need such steering.  There are undoubtedly
other techniques.

-d

FYI, there is also a new idea for Mobile DTLS which
provides similar address mobility, draft-barrett-mobile-dtls-00.txt.

Yes but that should be a different thread.

Scott

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf