[85684] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: IPv6 news
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (John Payne)
Sat Oct 15 17:23:43 2005
In-Reply-To: <B35CC056-84A6-43FF-87B6-8D2B80ACD04E@tony.li>
Cc: Daniel Roesen <dr@cluenet.de>, nanog@nanog.org
From: John Payne <john@sackheads.org>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 17:23:12 -0400
To: Tony Li <tony.li@tony.li>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Tony Li wrote:
>> So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
>> ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so
>> far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
>>
>
>
> If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should
> contribute it. Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated
> requirements. There was no tractable solution found to all
> requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as
> basically fatal.
I don't have an acceptable solution... however, I am getting tired of
shim6 being pushed as *the* solution to site rehoming, when at best
it's an end node rehoming solution.
