North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
On 14-Oct-2005, at 14:48, David Conrad wrote:
There is no shortage of rough corners to file down, and I am behind on my shim6 mail, but the general idea is to let end sites multi-home in the "bag-o-PA-prefixes" style and let the nodes within that site use their multiple globally-unique addresses (one per upstream, say) to allow sessions to survive rehoming events.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?
For end sites, that's a wildly-held opinion.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.
For ISPs, it's not required, since ISPs can already multi-home in the manner you describe, using PI addresses and BGP.