[e2e] 0% NAT - checkmating the disconnectors
agthorr at cs.uoregon.edu
Tue Mar 7 12:03:48 PST 2006
On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 02:11:53PM -0500, David Andersen wrote:
> This situation is parallel to the one you cited. Layer two addresses
> are not global (though by fate of manufacturing they are mostly
> unique), and have no validity outside the local scope. If we make IP
> behave the same way, then we'll just end up replacing it with some
> higher layer addressing and routing space. I like overlays, and I
> still think it's a waste to have to use them in this manner when
> we've got a perfectly salvagable addressing scheme in ipv6.
I'm hoping for standardized protocols for doing
IPv6-over-UDP-over-IPv4, something like STUN for NAT penetration, a
DHT-based rendezvous service, and an Anycast bootstrapping mechanism
to make initial contact with the DHT. We have all the pieces; we just
need to put them together.
Otherwise we're going to wake up one day to discover that Peer-to-Peer
developers have invented twelve different incompatible protocols that
all accomplish this goal.
(each with their own buggy "TCP-friendly" congestion control algorithms--yuck)
If a feature fits logically in the transport layer, but isn't, it will
end up in the application.
Daniel Stutzbach Computer Science Ph.D Student
http://www.barsoom.org/~agthorr University of Oregon
More information about the end2end-interest