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: Stephen Sprunk
  • Date: Fri Mar 03 11:50:11 2006 
Thus spake "Tony Li" <[email protected]>

Marshall,


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.

Sorry, but I'm just not buying the analogy.  The market drivers for IGMP
are somewhat smaller than they are for IPv6.
That depends on your perspective. There's a compelling need for usable multicast in many environments, and so far there's nobody (in the US) with a compelling need for IPv6, much less shim6.

Yes, it would take a couple of years for Shim6 to be implemented and
depending on where we hit Redmond's release cycle, actually
penetrate a significant number of hosts.
Shim6 needs to be finalized first, then someone has to convince MS to implement it. I'd put that, conservatively, at 4 years.

6 years is probably long, and definitely long if we get a confluence of
panic about the death of v4 plus a strong endorsement about Shim6
from the IETF.
The most dire predictions of v4's death have it at least 12-15 years away. To companies worried about next quarter's profits, you might as well be talking about global warming.

Consider that the IETF *could* conceivably require every compliant v6
implementation to include it.  I grant that that's unlikely and some
lesser endorsement is probably more reasonable, but I don't think
that you should underestimate the capability of the IETF/ISP/vendor/
host community to act a bit more quickly, if there is sufficient
motivation.
Without any enforcement powers, an IETF "requirement" is pretty useless. Those vendors that care will merely see one more complicated thing they have to add to their IPv6 stack and put it off adding IPv6 even longer.

I suggest that we compromise, split the difference and swag it at 4 years.
His was a minimum; I'd put the likely number at 4-6 years after shim6 is finally published (itself no fixed date), and potentially much longer if middlebox support is added (and without which shim6 will certainly never see the light of day).

S

Stephen Sprunk "Stupid people surround themselves with smart
CCIE #3723 people. Smart people surround themselves with
K5SSS smart people who disagree with them." --Aaron Sorkin