protocols that don't meet the need...

Kurt Erik Lindqvist kurtis at
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  
> solution.
> 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 mailing list