[151133] 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 15:01:47 2012
To: Ryan Malayter <malayter@gmail.com>
From: "Robert E. Seastrom" <rs@seastrom.com>
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:00:03 -0400
In-Reply-To: <7140c7c3-827e-4215-a77c-91fb458f4947@h20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com> (Ryan
Malayter's message of "Mon, 12 Mar 2012 09:27:43 -0700 (PDT)")
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
Ryan Malayter <malayter@gmail.com> writes:
> On Mar 12, 10:07 am, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r...@seastrom.com> wrote:
>> 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.
>>
>
> I thought the IETF required two inter-operable implementations for
> protocols. Or was that just for standards-track stuff?
Rough consensus and working code is soooooo 1993.
-r
