[e2e] 0% NAT - checkmating the disconnectors

[Daniel Stutzbach]

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