[89252] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Per Heldal)
Mon Mar 6 05:10:37 2006
From: "Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>
To: "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <A98CBD12-4484-48A3-8F09-9947E53164DC@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 11:10:05 +0100
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:35:02 +0100, "Kurt Erik Lindqvist"
<kurtis@kurtis.pp.se> said:
>
>
> On 2 mar 2006, at 21.42, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>
> > Putting routing decisions
> > into the transport layer (4) as it is done or proposed with SCTP and
> > SHIM6 is Total Evilness(tm) in my book.
>
> Not that shim6 is a change to transport though, but a change at layer
> 3...
>
Isn't the fact that shim6 doesn't affect the forwarding-plane of routers
an argument that is used to its advantage? It seems more like something
mingling the transport and session layers if anyone ask me (not that the
old iso-model is all that relevant anymore imho).
//per
--
Per Heldal
http://heldal.eml.cc/
