[151119] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Robert E. Seastrom)
Mon Mar 12 11:10:49 2012
To: Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 11:07:54 -0400
In-Reply-To: <4F5D465A.2060301@dougbarton.us> (Doug Barton's message of "Sun,
11 Mar 2012 17:42:02 -0700")
Cc: NANOG Mailing List <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Doug Barton <dougb@dougbarton.us> writes:
> On 3/11/2012 3:15 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>> But ARIN's action meant it never had a chance. I really don't get why they felt the need to start allowing IPv6 PI after a decade
>
> Because as far back as 2003 ARIN members (and members from all the other
> RIRs for that matter) were saying in very clear terms that PI space was
> a requirement for moving to v6. No one wanted to lose the provider
> independence that they had gained with v4. Without that, v6 was a total
> non-starter.
>
> ARIN was simply listening to its members.
It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
whatsoever. That later turned into a single prototype implementation
of shim6 for linux. As much as I tried to keep an open mind about
shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment
in protocol design. Somewhere along the line I started publicly
referring to it as "sham6". I'm sure I'm not the only person who came
to that conclusion.
Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI
-r
