North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

  • From: Joe Abley
  • Date: Wed Mar 01 01:04:18 2006

On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:

Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF telling us to
"sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too few operators involved in designing it. This has evidently led to a widespread perception of an ivory tower with a moat around it.

This attitude combined with Shim6's (many) limitations speed it toward irrelevance.
To gain real relevance it needs to be deployed; to be deployed, it needs to be embraced by enterprise operators and content providers.

If these operators dismiss it out of hand on principal, and refuse to actually find out whether the general approach is able to solve problems or not, then irrelevance does indeed seem inevitable. However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.

How about some actual technical complaints about shim6? The jerking knees become tedious to watch, after a while.