[85652] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Sat Oct 15 00:02:32 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 03:47:42 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <F8230CDF-2A05-42C4-B2D1-4D3A5667A1A9@nominum.com>
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, David Conrad wrote:
> 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?
>
that is my read as well... I'd bet it'll be fun with uRPF strict on sites
that are /multihomed/ though still staticly routed :)
> > 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.
>
you've hit a nail on it's head.
