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 23:50:15 2005

On Sat, Oct 15, 2005 at 03:15:45AM +0000, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > 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
> there is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current
> path is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes?

Well, all this discussion and the set of requirements are nothing new.
Quite the contrary. Lots and lots of talking was done, but still multi6
resulted in shim6. Where should one gain hope? They were constantly
beaten with 6D Maglites, what does it take to see the light? Most folks
have given up argueing I guess. I myself certainly did, at least in open

But I have also to admit that I'm shocked how few folks have the balls
(or is it lazyness?) to express their opinion on IPv6 multihoming in the
public, on the established fora for that stuff. See the recent threads
about IPv6 PI / multihoming on ARIN PPML and other policy-making mailing
lists. Almost zero feedback from enterprise / SME folks. That of course
makes it much easier... "see, noone really complains! we must be going
down the right road!".

> > 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).
> that is troubling, yes... 'hypocrisy' ?

Hm, perhaps more like OPP syndrome, no idea. You can very comfortably
talk about ignoring requirements, when you have your own allocs in
place, or know that you can easily pretend to be an ~ISP by sheer size
of the company (you know, the "our IT department is the ISP for all
other departments and spoke sites, and we have lots of them" standard

Frankly I don't have a clue what really lead the IETF to do the multi6
=> shim6 move. Don't have any insight into the politics behind the

Best regards,

CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: [email protected] -- [email protected] -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0