Subject: RE: threats ID

From: "Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar \(UMKC-Student\)" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2004 04:10:15 -0600

> I would say that this is the difference between (most) of the proposals
> in multi6 and NAT. The proposals have provided mechanisms to let ULPs
> handle referrals, even when there is rewriting. Something that NAT does
> not provide.
 
what about 4+4? It is a NAT based proposal which handle referral service
pretty well. Also,if FQDNs can handle referral task, NAT can be extended 
to provide a scalable site-multihoming solution( Paul Francis IPNL is 
an example.)
 
btw, I know that NAT, IPv4 and FQDNs have problems.

---

From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:04:30 +0100

On 25-jan-04, at 11:10, Ayyasamy, Senthilkumar ((UMKC-Student)) wrote:

> Also,if FQDNs can handle referral task,

Not really, as a single FQDN can map to more than one host and the 
reference may need to point to one of them rather than the group.

> NAT can be extended  to provide a scalable site-multihoming solution

Yeah right. I'll believe it when 1000000000 people are running this and 
it turns out to 1. work and 2. be scalable.

> ( Paul Francis IPNL is an example.)

Reference?