protocols that don't meet the need...
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Wed Feb 15 11:08:14 UTC 2006
On 15 feb 2006, at 11.51, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> That is one of the reasons we did the NANOG 35 IPv6
>> multihoming BOF (and are doing the same at the upcoming
>> apricot meeting).
> Which is a good thing. But still, many IETF folks deny the fact that
> they constantly hear that things like shim6 is NOT what the ops folks
> (the folks that have to actually work with the stuff IETF brings
> forward) are looking for.
I think YOUR problem is that the chairs in an IETF WG gathers
consensus of the members.
Additionally I would like to point out that on shim6 specifically I
also meets representatives of fairly large providers that see new
opportunities with shim6 or id/loc split solutions. To Dave's point
that there are people "in IETF" that don't think there is an operator
community I would like to add that there certainly is an operator
community but their views are not homogenous. And neither is any
other groups. Which makes the job of any IETF WG chair to judge
consensus among the representatives in a particular WG to do just
that, gather consensus and move forward.
> And we know that it doesn't. It can't.
> There is no way to do traffic engineering with any shim6-like system
> like one can do with BGP as shim6 is a completely host-centric
> It has no clue about upstream/downstream/peering, ASses etc. Those
> things that actually make topology and economics. That's aside all the
> other administrative nightmares associated.
I would like to argue that TE in the general case is orthogonal to
upstream/downstream/peering. I am not clear if you are trying to
voice concern that you can not do TE, or that shim6 will not give you
the ability to control how your customers does TE, or something else.
- kurtis -
More information about the NANOG