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: Christian Kuhtz
  • Date: Wed Mar 01 01:08:10 2006

On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

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.
One man's perception is another man's reality. ;-)

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.
Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by this thing called Moore's law.

I think until you slay the daemon of default global reachability (which is counter to everything IP), draining the swamp is an exercise in futility. Controlling the flooding OTOH is a creative posture.