[85606] in North American Network Operators' Group
shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (David Conrad)
Fri Oct 14 14:49:12 2005
In-Reply-To: <F1DB646F-2AA3-4739-9BC0-714F3CA885E3@isc.org>
Cc: Christopher L.Morrow <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
nanog@nanog.org
From: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:48:28 -0700
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
Joe (or anyone else),
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> 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.
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution, but
rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my impression incorrect?
> 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?
If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else
is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented
in any near term timeframe and it will take a very long time for
existing v6 stacks to be upgraded to support shim6. What I suspect
will be required is real _site_ multihoming. Something that will
take existing v6 customer sites and allow them to be multi-homed
without modification to each and every v6 stack within the site.
Rgds,
-drc
