North American Network Operators Group

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

Re: shim6 @ NANOG

  • From: Iljitsch van Beijnum
  • Date: Sun Mar 05 09:05:51 2006

On 4-mrt-2006, at 22:31, 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.
A case can be made that some big sites sitting high and dry wouldn't care enough about their customers to do shim6 with them if they're multihomed using shim6, but that's not the same thing as there being zero benefit. Especially in a competitive market place: what if Hotmail runs shim6 so that multihomed Hotmail users can keep sending mail even when one ISP fails, while Gmail doesn't?

You assume that all the big sites will get PI /32s and that this will allow them to multihome the way they want. I'm sure _some_ big sites will get a /32 or /48 or other PI block, but it remains to be seen whether all do. And having a single block isn't enough if you connect to the net in various locations but don't want to backhaul traffic between those locations yourself.

Yes, this is an issue. If we have to wait for a major release or even
a service pack, that will take some time. But OS vendors have
software update mechanisms in place so they could send out shim6 code
in between.

And no major company supports/allows automated software update
Dit I use the word "automated"?

But again, it cuts both ways: if only two people run shim6 code,
those two people gain shim6 benefits immediately.

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
Nobody is forced to implement shim6 if they don't want. But not liking shim6 doesn't buy you PI in IPv6.

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.
2 million prefixes in a router that supports 1 million is also a non- starter.

Insisting that shim6 isn't going to work is a waste of time, because it doesn't do anything to make shim6 better so it could work or create alternatives, it just adds FUD.

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.
Engineering based on faith is insane. Even with today's science we have balconies falling off of appartment buildings and roofs collapsing when it rains or snows a bit harder than usual, so a little caution here and there isn't too much to ask for.