North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: IPv6 news

  • From: Joe Abley
  • Date: Fri Oct 14 12:00:06 2005

On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:27, Daniel Roesen wrote:

On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, 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.
But isn't a solution for many (most?) of them, EVEN if it would be
universally implemented everywhere[tm].
Agreed, the solution space of current IPv4 multi-homing practice is larger than that of shim6.

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, and the measurement and modelling is arguably of limited use until the protocol elements come out of the oven.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that edge-adaptive traffic engineering (along the lines of that carried out by many peer-to-peer applications) is necessarily inferior to traffic engineering carried out by upstream ISPs, however, which is something that I often hear. The balance of goodness depends on far too many variables to pre- judge, and there are philosophical arguments in favour of both approaches.