Claims that SCION allows two hosts with the same IP to talk to each other, or a v4 to talk to a v6, are confusing.
TODOs:
[ ] Reword section 1.3.1 to make it clear that the two endpoints must both directly and natively connected to SCION to talk to each other.
[ ] Remove claim in -overview draft that IPv4 hosts can talk to IPv6 hosts (throws people off)
Feedback
Harald 23.07.2024
The claim is made that “addressing means that one can communicate between 10.1.1.1 in one AS and 10.1.1.1 in another AS” - but since the IP/SCION mapping is not described, how this would be accomplished is not clear. Possibly it only works if the “10.1.1.1” entity is directly connected as a SCION node, so that the source address of the remote entity doesn’t have to be represented in the destination domain?
Response
Yes, this claim refers to two “native” SCION endpoints, meaning that they both run a SCION stack and therefore the SCION Address header would have different source/destination ISD-AS. Since this refers to traffic between native endpoints, there is not really a mapping. I guess you got confused by the dataplane draft section 1.3.1. We can reword the section to make it clear that the two endpoints ate both directly connected to SCION.
Claims that SCION allows two hosts with the same IP to talk to each other, or a v4 to talk to a v6, are confusing.
TODOs:
Feedback