Subject: RE: DSTM-ports Considered Harmful [Re: (ngtrans) final ngtransagendafor IETF-53 in Minneapolis]

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 19 Mar 2002 01:59:36 -0500

Myung is 100% correct.

The whole point of DSTM is to reduce the need for NAT-PT and assist with SIIT type translation as a server.

Also to the router this will be transparent as long as it supports tunneling which they all do. 

The servers do this part of the transition.

DSTM will be deployed  in production by end of CY 2002.  Thats a done deal.

The question is will Myung's enhancement to do RSIP like ports be useful to users who have limited IPv4 address space?

I think the answer is yes.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Myung-Ki Shin [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Monday, March 18, 2002 11:19 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Francis Dupont; Alain Durand; Yasevich, Vladislav; NGtrans List
> Subject: Re: DSTM-ports Considered Harmful [Re: (ngtrans) 
> final ngtransagendafor IETF-53 in Minneapolis]
> 
> 
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> 
> > > => IMHO the port option is like adding a NAT in DSTM. It 
> saves addresses
> > > but remains an abomination.
> >
> > IMHO if you really have to save addresses, why don't you 
> just give out
> > private IPv4 addresses to the DSTM nodes and do NAT.  Much cleaner
> > solution, and nothing to do with IPv6 then!
> 
>   In my opinion,  at least, DSTM+NAT is bad approach.
>   As I said, one of DSTM benefits is to provide end-2-end 
> computing for IPv4
> without
>   translation.
> 
>   Myung-Ki.
> 
> 
> 
> 
>