[82408] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: OMB: IPv6 by June 2008
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Fri Jul 15 16:24:23 2005
In-Reply-To: <80FC151A-873C-4945-8A5C-BDE2D725F546@isc.org>
Cc: <nanog@merit.edu> <nanog@merit.edu>
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 16:23:52 -0400
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Jul 7, 2005, at 1:37 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
> My various networked devices each get two addresses in this way. When
> they talk to some remote device that has a shim6 element in its
> protocol stack, I get all the benefits that I would expect to achieve
> by multi-homing: if one provider goes down, I use the other one
> without having to debug anything, or yank any cables, or answer any
> difficult pop-up questions. Sessions that are established before one
> provider dies continue to work afterwards. New sessions start up just
> fine. When the provider comes back on-line, everything continues to
> work. I probably don't even notice that the provider had a problem.
I've only briefly read stuff about shim6... I've seen mention of load
sharing and redundancy, but what about load unbalancing and redundancy?
An end-site with BGP today has lots of control over their outbound
traffic patterns in particular... maybe I missed something, but I don't
get how you can maintain this level of control with shim6. (inbound
traffic unbalancing is also an issue... but I did read something about
dynamically exchanging locators which I could see being used to
unbalance inbound traffic, perhaps with more control than today's BGP
setup)
