[85613] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (william(at)elan.net)
Fri Oct 14 15:35:30 2005
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:33:51 -0700 (PDT)
From: "william(at)elan.net" <william@elan.net>
To: bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com
Cc: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>,
David Conrad <david.conrad@nominum.com>,
"Christopher L.Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>,
NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <20051014192737.GB13801@vacation.karoshi.com.>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com 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.
No. The kicker is that the applications needs no such smarts and
shim6 will take care of this for all applications on the system on
the network level.
--
William Leibzon
Elan Networks
william@elan.net
