North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Daniel Roesen
  • Date: Fri Oct 14 12:13:05 2005

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:50:33AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find  
> shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some  
> measurement and modelling before I made declarations about that,

You mean in some 5-10 years? When finally the many folks who even
struggle to implement TCP properly manage to implement some one or
even two (newest idea of the shim6 folks) shim layers into the stack
and get that deployed widely? I don't see that.

But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETF
perhaps at one point in time realize that they are designing a solution
which misses the stated requirements of many folks actually operating
networks - and start working on a solution which actually solves the
preceived problem of scalability in a way operators look forward in
deploying.

And looking at the IPv6 allocation lists, I see that some of the folks'
employers involved in shim6 developement actually have got their own
allocations (and even leak more-specifics in geopgraphic distinct
locations for traffic engineering). Looks like they couldn't convice
even their own IT folks that shim6 or anything else will fix their
problem (feature wise and/or timeline wise).

Sorry for being so politically incorrect to spell out in open words what
a lot of folks out there think. I'm wearing my asbestos anyway. :-)


Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0