[89021] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Wed Mar 1 01:53:11 2006
In-Reply-To: <7009EECF-C809-4C88-93E1-F86E100C2980@corp.earthlink.net>
Cc: Daniel Golding <dgolding@burtongroup.com>,
Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
John Payne <john@sackheads.org>, NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:52:38 -0500
To: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:06, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
>> 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 don't know that anybody can tell how bad it might be. It'd be a
shame if it turned out to be really bad, and we had no fallback plan.
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp --
for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people
whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual device, and to
do so in a scaleable way.
> 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.
The point is that in v6, there is not yet a swamp to drain.
Joe
