[85655] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christopher L. Morrow)
Sat Oct 15 00:34:07 2005
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 04:32:28 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow@mci.com>
In-reply-to: <200510141948.j9EJm9v2020969@turing-police.cc.vt.edu>
To: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu
Cc: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote:
> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:39:58 +0200, Daniel Roesen said:
>
> > Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
> > globally routed. Seperating topology from identification.
> >
> > Something I didn't see discussed yet is that shim6 sites would need to
> > get a globally unique, provider independent /48 or larger... which folks
> > could start to announce. But I guess that address space would come from
> > blocks earmarked as "non-routable, it's a bogon, bad IP space, filter in
> > BGP at first sight!". :-)
>
> You know, if you describe it that way too many times, people who are
> only paying half-attention are going to say "IPv6 has something almost
> like NAT, only different".
you know... shim6 could make 'source address' pointless, you COULD just do
NAT instead :) or do shim6 which looks like NAT ... if you don't get the
host auth parts correct/done-well you might even be able to send traffic
off to the 'wrong' place :) it'll be neat!
