North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Joe Abley
  • Date: Sat Mar 04 22:07:13 2006

On 4-Mar-2006, at 16:31, Matthew Petach 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.
No support in big networks is required, beyond the presence of shim6 in server stacks.

The assumption is, therefore, that if there has been sufficient deployment of shim6 in client stacks for this to matter, the chances are that the servers that those clients want to talk to have already enjoyed similar upgrades.

In the companies I have been involved in which do hosting, my observation has been that the servers are generally upgraded and patched far more vigourously than machines belonging to clients. If that non-scientific observation holds any water, then this suggests that the issue of shim6 support in servers which are being used by shim6-capable clients will look after itself.