[89018] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Christian Kuhtz)
Wed Mar 1 01:07:30 2006
In-Reply-To: <CAB664EF-2E0B-481E-B851-69BDFB242CA7@isc.org>
Cc: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
John Payne <john@sackheads.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:06:53 -0500
To: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
>
> On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
>
>> Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
>> telling us to
>> "sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".
>
> Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too
> few operators involved in designing it. This has evidently led to a
> widespread perception of an ivory tower with a moat around it.
One man's perception is another man's reality. ;-)
> If these operators dismiss it out of hand on principal, and refuse
> to actually find out whether the general approach is able to solve
> problems or not, then irrelevance does indeed seem inevitable.
> However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.
Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by this
thing called Moore's law.
I think until you slay the daemon of default global reachability
(which is counter to everything IP), draining the swamp is an
exercise in futility. Controlling the flooding OTOH is a creative
posture.
