Re: IP network address assignments/allocations information?

[Yakov Rekhter]

Noel,

>     > From: Ed Gerck <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 
>     > maybe this is what the market wants -- a multiple-protocol Internet,
>     > where tools for IPv4/IPv6 interoperation will be needed ... and valued.
> 
> This relates to an approach that seems more fruitful, to me - let's try and
> figure out things that sidestep this incredibly divisive, upsetting and
> fundamentally unproductive argument, and try and find useful things we can do
> to make things work better.
> 
>     > Which can, undoubtably, be put in a sound theoretical framework for
>     > NATs, in network topology. NATs do not have to be a hack.
> 
> Well, the fundamental architectural premise of NAT's *as we know them today* -
> that there are no globally unique names at the internetwork level - is one
> which is inherently problematic (long architectural rant explaining why
> omitted). So I don't think that the classic NAT model is a good idea,
> long-term.

I would say that the fundamental architectural premise of NATs is that
globally unique names at the internetwork layer are not carried in the
network layer header. This is not to say that such names don't exist -
just that they aren't in the IP header.

Yakov.