North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
BTW, as I read it, SHIM6 requires not only modification to ALL nodes at the site, but, modification to ALL nodes to which the node needs reliable connectivity. In other words, SHIM6 is not fully useful until it is fully ubiquitous in virtually all IPv6 stacks. Owen --On October 14, 2005 11:48:28 AM -0700 David Conrad <email@example.com> wrote: > > Joe (or anyone else), > > On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote: >> The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, >> since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on >> PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end >> sites. > > Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my impression > has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution, but rather a > _node_ multihoming solution. Is my impression incorrect? > >> Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above >> and beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked >> and real) would present a threat to ISPs? > > If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else is > required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented in any > near term timeframe and it will take a very long time for existing v6 > stacks to be upgraded to support shim6. What I suspect will be required > is real _site_ multihoming. Something that will take existing v6 > customer sites and allow them to be multi-homed without modification to > each and every v6 stack within the site. > > Rgds, > -drc -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.