[151125] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ryan Malayter)
Mon Mar 12 12:29:48 2012
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:43 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <86k42prh6d.fsf@seastrom.com>
From: Ryan Malayter <malayter@gmail.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Mar 12, 10:07=A0am, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote:
> It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
> whatsoever. =A0That later turned into a single prototype implementation
> of shim6 for linux. =A0As much as I tried to keep an open mind about
> shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment
> in protocol design. =A0Somewhere along the line I started publicly
> referring to it as "sham6". =A0I'm sure I'm not the only person who came
> to that conclusion.
>
I thought the IETF required two inter-operable implementations for
protocols. Or was that just for standards-track stuff?
Anyway, the effort involved in getting Shim6 implemented globally on
all devices would have been nearly as large as switching over all
applications from TCP to a protocol with a "proper" session layer,
like SCTP. I believe there are libraries that wrap SCTP and make it
look like TCP to legacy applications; wouldn't that have been a better
approach?
