[89254] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Kurt Erik Lindqvist)
Mon Mar 6 05:24:58 2006
In-Reply-To: <1141639805.17700.255911472@webmail.messagingengine.com>
Cc: "NANOG list" <nanog@nanog.org>
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis@kurtis.pp.se>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:24:59 +0100
To: Per Heldal <heldal@eml.cc>
Errors-To: owner-nanog@merit.edu
On 6 mar 2006, at 11.10, Per Heldal wrote:
>
> 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).
Ok, so shim6 doesn't require a change to the transport layer and it
doesn't change the forwarding plane. It does create a mapping state
at the end-nodes. So claiming it to be either is probably wrong.
- kurtis -
