RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

From: Christian Huitema <huitema at windows.microsoft.com>
To: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb at cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch at muada.com>, Fred Baker <fred at cisco.com>, IETF Discussion <ietf at ietf.org>
Date: Tue, 2 Dec 2008 09:30:31 -0800
In-reply-to: <20081202075303.36d26cec at cs.columbia.edu>
References: <200811262240.mAQMeC6Z045877 at drugs.dv.isc.org> <Pine.LNX.4.33.0811261455520.28290-100000 at egate.xpasc.com> <075101c9501d$1344cf00$39ce6d00$ at net> <2788466ED3E31C418E9ACC5C316615572FFBB6 at mou1wnexmb09.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com> <FA256DDD-5C7B-4AD4-A8AA-ADC368F37162 at cisco.com> <CE67747D-DE1F-47BB-982B-9080DBAE9CB5 at muada.com> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3BF8 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <20081201223833.4cb6bedf at cs.columbia.edu> <8EFB68EAE061884A8517F2A755E8B60A193CCC3C50 at NA-EXMSG-W601.wingroup.windeploy.ntdev.microsoft.com> <20081202075303.36d26cec at cs.columbia.edu>

> > Actually, rather than tunneling, have we seriously consider flat host
> > based routing in a corporate network? A combination of DHT and
> > caching technologies ought to make that quite scalable.
>
> I've used large, flat networks, and lived to regret it....

Do we have a documentation somewhere about the evils of flat networks? Do we know which are links to specific technologies, e.g. the convergence time of spanning trees, and which are tied to the subnet model, e.g. multicast storms? It seems to be a classic case of engineering trade-offs, and mitigation of specific issues...

-- Christian Huitema



_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf at ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

References:
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Mark Andrews
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: David Morris
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impact to applicationdevelopers
  - From: Tony Hain
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Fred Baker
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Christian Huitema
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Steven M. Bellovin
- RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Christian Huitema
- Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
  - From: Steven M. Bellovin

Prev by Date: Re: [secdir] secdir review of draft-raj-dhc-tftp-addr-option-04
Next by Date: Re: where to have the NAT66 discussion (was Re: [BEHAVE] Please move this thread to BEHAVE mailing list ... )
Previous by thread: Re: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
Next by thread: RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.

RE: [BEHAVE] Lack of need for 66nat : Long term impactto applicationdevelopers

Note: Messages sent to this list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.