[89149] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Roland Dobbins)
Fri Mar 3 14:21:56 2006
In-Reply-To: <05b601c63ef3$48abc6f0$720016ac@ssprunk>
From: Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 11:21:24 -0800
To: nanog@nanog.org
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Mar 3, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>OTOH, hosts go a lot longer between upgrades and generally don't
have professional admins. It'll be a long, long >time (if ever)
until shim6 is deployed widely enough for folks to literally bet
their company on host-based >multihoming.
This issue alone means that shim6 isn't viable. Besides the already-
mentioned security and complexity issues, enterprise IT departments -
i.e., the customers who need multihoming and cannot live without it -
are not going to be amused when told that the tens and hundreds of
thousands of desktops, laptops, PDAs, and other IP-enabled devices on
their networks are now essentially routers, with multiple IP
addresses and complex middleware required to simply access 'the
Internet' . . . they're starved for resources and talent like
everyone else, and the network is -not- their business, simply a
means to an end. It's all overhead, to them.
Many customers have trouble simply supporting (and patching/
upgrading) basic OS and apps and IPv4. Expecting them to support
something like shim6 is as unrealistic as expecting them to re-
address at the drop of a hat due to changing business relationships
with their SPs (see RFC 4192 for an exposition on the effort required
to renumber, and discussion on the concept of network renumbering as
a frequent procedure).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins@cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice
Everything has been said. But nobody listens.
-- Roger Shattuck
