[89090] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Iljitsch van Beijnum)
Thu Mar 2 09:16:37 2006
In-Reply-To: <OFAA08F33B.6F59CDC6-ON80257125.004BA1E8-80257125.004BEC84@btradianz.com>
Cc: nanog@nanog.org
From: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 15:15:59 +0100
To: Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 2-mrt-2006, at 14:49, Michael.Dillon@btradianz.com wrote:
> Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
> an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
> they won't have to do this because the BGP multihoming
> option will be available.
I guess you have a better crystal ball than I do.
One thing is very certain: today, a lot of people who have their own
PI or even PA block with IPv4, don't qualify for one with IPv6. While
it's certainly possible that the rules will be changed such that more
people can get an IPv6 PI or PA block, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that
this will become as easy as with IPv4.
Ergo: some people who multihome with BGP in IPv4 today won't be able
to do the same with IPv6. And if you manage to get a PI or PA block
you will very likely find that deaggregating won't work nearly as
well with IPv6 as it does with IPv4.
So learn to love shim6 or help create something better. Complaining
isn't going to solve anything.
