North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
Hello; On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
I have to object to this here; your hands are not waving nearly hard enough.On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote:Not quite -- the practical usefulness of the multi-homing increases with the deployment of shim6-capable stacks. You could imagine a threshold of server and host upgrades which would provide useful multi-homing a good proportion of the time without universal deployment.On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp -- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual device, and to do so in a scaleable way.
This was exactly the same mistake that was made with IGMPv3, which IIRC was
finalized around the time of the Adelaide IETF (i.e., almost exactly 6 years ago).
1.) It took about 4 years for Windows variants with IGMPv3 support to dominate the Windows logs in my web servers.
(By dominate, I mean > 80% of hits from windows machines.) In February of this year,
Windows 98 (non IGMPv3 capable) was still 2% of the total web hits, compared to 0.56 % for all flavors of Linux and 0.03% for all flavors of BSD.
2.) The Mac (8% of web hits in February 2006), still doesn't have it.
3.) So IGMPv3 deployment in hosts _at this instant_ is almost certainly less than 90%.
4.) Partially as a result, SSM deployment is still miniscule.
That's after 6 years.
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be, in 2010 we might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90% deployment.
I actually think that 2012 would be a more realistic date for 70% deployment of Shim6, given the lack of running code and a finalized protocol now.
In my opinion, that doesn't imply that Shim6 should be abandoned. But it does mean IMHO that regarding it as a
means to spur IPv6 deployment is just not realistic.
I feel fairly certain I have exceeded some kind of unenforced posting threshold to this list in the last twelve hours. I will try hard to be quiet for a while, now :-)