[85582] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Fri Oct 14 10:58:59 2005
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.58.0510141411210.26672@parapet.argfrp.us.uu.net>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:57:59 -0400
To: Christopher L.Morrow <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>> Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
>> tricks
>> that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
>> either.
>> But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support
>> shim6, as
>
> shim6 is:
> 1) not baked
> 2) not helpful for transit as's
> 3) not a reality
Not baked is absolutely correct, and not a reality follows readily
from that, as viewed by an operator.
I'm interested in (2), though. Shim6 is not intended to be a solution
for transit ASes. If you're an ISP, then you can get PI address space
and multi-home in the normal way with BGP.
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end sites.
Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above and
beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked and
real) would present a threat to ISPs?
Joe
