[89190] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Sun Mar 5 04:20:56 2006
In-Reply-To: <20060304114302.b2270c1b.smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Cc: tme@multicasttech.com, jabley@isc.org, john@sackheads.org,
kuhtzch@corp.earthlink.net, dgolding@burtongroup.com,
iljitsch@muada.com, nanog@nanog.org
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 10:12:20 +0100
To: Steven M.Bellovin <smb@cs.columbia.edu>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 4 mar 2006, at 17.43, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> 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.
Duh. Given I was part of the discussion of which prefixes to use in
the document I should have remembered that...
Still it was deployed way before that.
- kurtis -
