Subject: RE: BIA [Re: DSTM Considered Harmful [Re: (ngtrans) final ngtransagendaforIETF-53in Minneapolis]

From: "Bound, Jim" <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 10:21:24 -0500

Brian,

These shims are most difficult to support in a product and then retire.
DSTM avoids this completely.

/jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Brian E Carpenter [mailto:[email-masked]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 19, 2002 7:34 PM
> To: Pekka Savola
> Cc: Christian Huitema; [email-masked]; Bound, Jim;
> Octavio Medina; Tim Chown; NGtrans List
> Subject: Re: BIA [Re: DSTM Considered Harmful [Re: (ngtrans) final
> ngtransagendaforIETF-53in Minneapolis]
> 
> 
> Pekka Savola wrote:
> ...
> > 
> > I think you're mixing up BIA with NAT-PT and such though: 
> with BIA, you
> > basically don't need any NAT-PT or such.
> 
> Indeed. The whole point of BIA is to avoid the need for a NAT-PT box;
> both protocol translation and address translation take place in the
> shim on the socket API.
> 
>    Brian
>