North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
On 3/4/06, Iljitsch van Beijnum <[email protected]> wrote:
On 4-mrt-2006, at 14:07, Kevin Day wrote:
And given that any network big enough to get their own PI /32 has *zero*
incentive to install/support shim6 means that all those smaller networks
that are pushed to install shim6 are going to see *zero* benefit when they
try to reach the major sites on the internet.
What benefit does shim6 bring, if only the little guys are using it?
This dog won't hunt. Move on to something useful.
Yes, this is an issue. If we have to wait for a major release or even
And no major company supports/allows automated software update
mechanisms to run on their production machines--it adds too much
of an element of randomness to an environment that has to be as much
as possible deterministic in its behaviour.
But again, it cuts both ways: if only two people run shim6 code,
Cool. So let individuals make a choice to install it if they want. But
that's a choice they make, and should not be part of a mandated IP
allocation policy, because otherwise we're codifying a split between
"big" companies and everyone else. The companies that can justify /32
allocations _aren't_ going to install shim6; they already have their
multihoming options (for the most part) covered--so the little guys who
install shim6 to "multihome" are going to discover it doesn't do diddly
squat for helping them reach any major sites on the internet during an
outage of one of their providers. You haven't preserved end-to-end
connectivity this way, you've just waved a pretty picture in front of the
smaller company's face to make them think they'll have the benefits of
multihoming when they really don't.
> Getting systems not controlled by the networking department of an
Won't matter. shim6 on a middle box still won't be able to re-route to the
majority of the large sites on the Internet during an outage on one of the
upstream providers given that the large content players and large network
providers aren't going to be installing shim6 on their servers and load
> The real "injustice" about this is that it's creating two classes
You failed to note that the smaller company, *even after spending money
upgrading hardware and software to shim6 compatible solution* won't achieve
the same reliability as their bigger competitors. (see above if you missed it).
shim6 is _more_ anti-competitive than extending the existing IP allocation
policies from v4 into v6, and is therefore not going to garner the support of
the companies that actually spend money to create this thing we call the
Internet. And without money behind it, the effort is a non-starter.
> Someone earlier brought up that a move to shim6, or not being able
But the smaller sites who enable shim6 don't gain any benefit when
talking to the large sites on the internet--so they've gone through a lot
of pain and effort for very little actual benefit, since they still aren't
usefully multihomed. There's just no real benefit to shim6 unless you
require *EVERY* site to support it; and I can tell you that the large
content sites will simply stay on v4 rather than install the complexity
that is shim6 on their production webservers.
> If you could justify why shim6 isn't sufficient for your network,
Consolidation will likely occur; those that need address space will
find that buying less-fortunate companies in order to swallow their
address space will become a normal, understood part of their
business planning cycle. Competition will decrease, and the shift
towards larger and larger companies will ensue, as smaller players
gobble each other up in order to become large enough such that
any needed migration to IPv6 can happen directly onto a PI /32.
If we persist on following this path, we'll simply end up in a world
where the large entities control the resources, and the barriers for
entry turn out to be the very ones we set up in our own well-meaning
If we screw up the routing table real good on the other hand, we're
I have more faith in our ability to deal with route table growth than I do
in our ability to come up with a viable instantiation of shim6.
> The question of IPv6 migration and IPv6 route size are *two
IPv6 may be inevitable; but the way shim6 is pushing allocation policies,
it will be in a world in which only big players multihome, and everyone else
must buy from a big player and won't get to multihome. Yes, people will
wave the shim6 flag around to make small startups think they can multihome
and pretend to be a big player, but at the first outage, the little guy will discover
his multihoming is a facade, and that none of the major sites on the Internet
that he wants to talk to are interested in playing his shim6 games with his end
hosts--and his customers will quickly realize that any independance from the
upstream networks is all smoke and mirrors, and not worth the paper such
claims may be printed upon.
If that's the direction we're heading, let's just stop beating around the bush and
say it plainly: Shim6 is just a handwaving panacea to make the smaller
enterprises shut up and stop obstructing v6 deployment for the short term so
that we can get more critical mass on the v6 networks and maybe justify getting
some of the large players to start making useful material available via v6 which
might finally show a few dollars of real revenue flowing due to v6 deployments.
But it's insulting to keep pretending that shim6 is going to offer any level of
real multihoming-style reliability benefit for the smaller players when talking to
engineers. Save it for the marketing literature for the customers.