[89209] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: shim6 @ NANOG
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Joe Abley)
Sun Mar 5 15:28:44 2006
In-Reply-To: <E8891E712560F8C30EAB4E71@imac-en0.delong.sj.ca.us>
Cc: Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch@muada.com>,
Kevin Day <toasty@dragondata.com>,
Stephen Sprunk <stephen@sprunk.org>,
North American Noise and Off-topic Gripes <nanog@merit.edu>
From: Joe Abley <jabley@isc.org>
Date: Sun, 5 Mar 2006 15:28:05 -0500
To: Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 5-Mar-2006, at 14:16, Owen DeLong wrote:
> It flies if you look at changing the routing paradigm instead of =20
> pushing
> routing decisions out of the routers and off to the hosts. Source =20
> Routing
> is a technology that most of the internet figured out is problematic
> years ago. Making source routing more complicated and calling it =20
> something
> else doesn't make it less of a bad idea.
Calling shim6 source-routing when it's not in order to give it an =20
aura of evil is similarly unproductive :-)
> I don't think it will be as expensive as you think to fix it. I =20
> think if
> we start working on a new routing paradigm today in order to =20
> support IDR
> based on AS PATH instead of Prefix, we would realistically see this in
> deployable workable code within 3-5 years.
I'm confused by statements such as these.
Was it not the lack of any scalable routing solution after many years =20=
of trying that led people to resort to endpoint mobility in end =20
systems, =E0 la shim6?
Joe
