[85612] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com)
Fri Oct 14 15:29:00 2005
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 19:27:37 +0000
From: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Cc: David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>,
"Christopher L.Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <999D5390-5610-47F7-8FC3-82F18295272F@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 03:19:27PM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> >On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> >
> >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?
>
> There is no shortage of rough corners to file down, and I am behind
> on my shim6 mail, but the general idea is to let end sites multi-home
> in the "bag-o-PA-prefixes" style and let the nodes within that site
> use their multiple globally-unique addresses (one per upstream, say)
> to allow sessions to survive rehoming events.
the kicker here is that the applications then need some
serious smarts to do proper source address selection.
> >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.
>
> For end sites, that's a wildly-held opinion.
wildly or widely? :)
> Joe
--bill
