IPv6 news
John Payne
john at sackheads.org
Sat Oct 15 21:23:12 UTC 2005
On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Tony Li wrote:
>> So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
>> ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so
>> far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
>>
>
>
> If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should
> contribute it. Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated
> requirements. There was no tractable solution found to all
> requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as
> basically fatal.
I don't have an acceptable solution... however, I am getting tired of
shim6 being pushed as *the* solution to site rehoming, when at best
it's an end node rehoming solution.
More information about the NANOG
mailing list