[85640] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Fri Oct 14 23:19:09 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:15:45 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <20051014161050.GB30311@srv01.cluenet.de>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>
> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 11:50:33AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
> > I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find
> > shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some
> > measurement and modelling before I made declarations about that,
>
>
> But I think the discussion is mood. IETF decided on their goal, and
> it's superfluous trying to change that. While watching shim6 we carry
> on hoping that we'll get IPv6 multihoming going in the conventional,
> proven, working, feature-complete way we're used to... until IETF
there is no hope in having operators explain to ietf that the current path
is fruitless? certainly they can be made to see the light, yes?
> And looking at the IPv6 allocation lists, I see that some of the folks'
> employers involved in shim6 developement actually have got their own
> allocations (and even leak more-specifics in geopgraphic distinct
> locations for traffic engineering). Looks like they couldn't convice
> even their own IT folks that shim6 or anything else will fix their
> problem (feature wise and/or timeline wise).
that is troubling, yes... 'hypocrisy' ?
>
> Sorry for being so politically incorrect to spell out in open words what
> a lot of folks out there think. I'm wearing my asbestos anyway. :-)
>
i for one appreciate it. Thanks!
