Subject: [nat66] Realm-specific IP

From: james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 26 Mar 2009 14:44:40 -0700

everyone--

My question about the architectural model of Dave Thaler's SAF being  
related to Realm-specific IP was not an idle one.  It's a rare enough  
occasion that I'm the one who remembers something relevant that  
someone like Dave doesn't already know about, that I'm genuinely  
surprised when it happens.  Hence, my hair pulling.  Sorry about  
that.  (I was also over-caffeinated.  Sorry about that, too.  I was  
awake until 0300 last night fixing bugs.)

Realm-specific IP is described in RFC 3102 and RFC 3103.  The protocol  
was even defined to support both IPv6 and IPv4 address realms on  
either [or both] sides of an RSIP gateway.

	Framework:               <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3102>
	Protocol Specification:  <http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc3103>

It strikes me that if SAF isn't equivalent to RSIP, then I'm not  
seeing the relevant distinctions.  Also, if SAF *is* functionally  
equivalent to RSIP, then what makes SAF now more architecturally  
appropriate than RSIP was then?  If SAF isn't equivalent to RSIP, then  
what's the difference I'm missing?

--
james woodyatt <[email-masked]>
member of technical staff, communications engineering

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:25:18 +1300

On 2009-03-27 10:44, james woodyatt wrote:
> occasion that I'm the one who remembers something relevant that someone
> like Dave doesn't already know about, that I'm genuinely surprised when
> it happens.  Hence, my hair pulling.  Sorry about that.  (I was also
> over-caffeinated.  Sorry about that, too.  I was awake until 0300 last
> night fixing bugs.)
> 
> was even defined to support both IPv6 and IPv4 address realms on either
> [or both] sides of an RSIP gateway.
> 
> It strikes me that if SAF isn't equivalent to RSIP, then I'm not seeing
> the relevant distinctions.  Also, if SAF *is* functionally equivalent to
> RSIP, then what makes SAF now more architecturally appropriate than RSIP
> was then?  If SAF isn't equivalent to RSIP, then what's the difference
> I'm missing?

Not much, I think, although I'd want to re-read the RSIP documents
again to see if they overlooked any issues that we've learned
about since 2001. Probably what's missing is deployed code.

    Brian

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 27 Mar 2009 11:46:05 +1300

http://rsip.info.ucl.ac.be/