[89181] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Steven M. Bellovin)
Sat Mar 4 11:43:32 2006
Date: Sat, 4 Mar 2006 11:43:02 -0500
From: "Steven M. Bellovin" <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
To: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Cc: tme@multicasttech.com, jabley@isc.org, john@sackheads.org,
kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net, dgolding@burtongroup.com,
iljitsch@muada.com, nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <6A2804CB-428D-411B-880E-BCBAF55A03B4@kurtis.pp.se>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:59:18 +0100
Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> wrote:
>
>
> On 3 mar 2006, at 04.13, Marshall Eubanks wrote:
>
> > I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
> > any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be,
> > in 2010 we might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90%
> > deployment.
>
> OTOH Teredo, which isn't even a standard is in more or less all
> Windows XP boxes....
>
Teredo is described in RFC 4380; it's a Proposed Standard.
I should note that Microsoft really believes in IPv6. I wonder what
that means for its future....
