[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: IKEv2 and NAT traversal


My point is not the exact history of why we got here.

My point is that the IETF as a whole is not in a position to
complain about the introduction of NAT.


Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Henry Spencer [mailto:henry@spsystems.net]
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2001 5:45 PM
> To: Stephen Kent
> Cc: Hallam-Baker, Phillip; IP Security List
> Subject: RE: IKEv2 and NAT traversal
> 
> 
> On Mon, 17 Dec 2001, Stephen Kent wrote:
> > As one of the folks who was involved in the address space size 
> > decisions in the late 70s and early 80s, I can confirm that the 32 
> > bit size was chosen because of register/word sizes in current 
> > machines, including IBM, DEC, and others...
> 
> I don't dispute that given the hardware of the time (which I 
> worked with
> extensively, although not in the context of IP), it was 
> clearly imperative
> to make fixed-width addresses a multiple of 8, strongly 
> preferable to make
> them a multiple of 16, and definitely desirable to make them 
> a multiple of
> 32.  And obvious considerations of both network bandwidth and 
> processing
> power meant that they shouldn't be longer than "necessary"...
> 
> This is rather different from the assertion that the registers of one
> particular machine (especially the nonexistent 32-bit PDP) 
> dictated the
> choice, which is the claim I was responding to. 
> 
> Interestingly enough, when Xerox designed XNS, not very much 
> later, they
> chose 48.  (Which is why Ethernet addresses are 48 -- they 
> were intended
> to be identical to XNS addresses.)  Would that have sufficed 
> for IP?  An
> interesting although now academic question...  It certainly 
> wouldn't have
> permitted some of the clever tricks the IPv6 folk have come 
> up with for
> using their enormous address space, but those can be seen as 
> side issues
> rather than necessities.
> 
> > needless to say, if we had to do it again ...
> 
> Well, we have... with, so far, uncertain success.
> 
>                                                           
> Henry Spencer
>                                                        
> henry@spsystems.net
>

Phillip