Subject: RE: [midcom] STUN lifetime discovery question

From: "Christian Huitema" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Dec 2001 11:37:47 -0800

> The problem, though, is that as a result the technical decision is
driving
> the business model.  An application provider may very well prefer to
run
> the
> server itself, for instance because there is too much variability in
the
> performance of anycast-discovered servers.  They would not be able to
do
> this with the shipworm approach, so they would be incented to go with
> stun.
> As a result, they would be less inclined to take an IPv6 orientation
in
> solving this problem...

My experience is the contrary. Application developers are likely to move
to IPv6 precisely because they won't have to worry about NAT anymore.
YMMV.

> I don't see why SRV and anycast have to be mutually exclusive.
Anycast
> would be the default behavior, but could be over-ridden by the
application
> telling the "shipworm layer" to try SRV first.

The details of the shipworm spec are best discussed on the NGTRANS
mailing list. The hard technical fact is that if you want to provide a
subnet prefix out of a single UDP port, e.g. in order to use privacy
addresses or in order to set up a small local network, then you need a
/16 prefix, and you cannot have more than one IPv4 address for servers
using that prefix. /16 are hard to get, so the chances of having more
than one are small -- one per ASP is probably not an option.

-- Christian Huitema

_______________________________________________
midcom mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/midcom