protocols that don't meet the need...

Wed Feb 15 23:12:56 UTC 2006

On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Daniel Roesen wrote:

> 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.

Oki, let's step back a bit and look at shim6 from another angle, the 
user angle.

Shim6 will enable me to create my ssh session over my wired connection, 
keep it there for an hour, I can then enable my wireless connection and 
shim6 will announce my new address to the other end. I can then pull out 
my wired connection and just be wireless, and still keep the TCP 
connection up and running. This is roaming, and users want it (hell, I 
want it).

So this might be one way why the people developing shim6 doesn't seem to 
care about your views on the subject, because it doesn't only address the 
routing problem, it addresses other things as well.

I guess I have to do a disclaimer that the above is what I understand 
shim6 to be able to do, but I might be mistaken, if so, flame away.

The internet succeeded because of its end-to-end nature and freedom to 
create new applications that the network people didn't need to bother 
their heads with. Shim6 is the same thing, it will happen whether we want 
it or not. If users find it useful, it will florish. Better to be open 
than to try to stop it just because it doesn't fit into the model of 
today.

Also on the pricing issue, there is already a huge pricing difference 
between units that'll do 8k LPM routes and 1M LPM routes, I imagine the 
difference in 5 years will be the same between 64k LPM routes and 8M 
routes, I'd rather pay the lower price if the 64k LPM route unit because 
we didn't need to scale address space to every enterprise that want to 
multihome.

-- 
Mikael Abrahamsson    email: swmike at swm.pp.se