North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, David Conrad 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? > that is my read as well... I'd bet it'll be fun with uRPF strict on sites that are /multihomed/ though still staticly routed :) > > 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. > you've hit a nail on it's head.