shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Joe Abley jabley at
Tue Feb 28 17:09:14 UTC 2006

On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:52, Kevin Day wrote:

> I'm not saying shim6 is flawed beyond anyone being able to use it.  
> I can see many scenarios where it would work great. However, I'm  
> really wary of it becoming the de facto standard for how *everyone*  
> multihomes if they're under a certain size. I'm just bringing up my  
> objections now, so that it's really clear that shim6 doesn't  
> provide what a lot of us smaller networks are doing now in IPv4 land.

These are important things to point out, and I'd encourage you to say  
them on the shim6 list too.

There are ideas floating around about extending the shim6 such that  
the protocol between hosts can be mediated by middleboxes, such that  
site policies can be imposed upon the more opportunistic actions of  
the end stations. These ideas would have far more currency if it  
could be shown that they help to meet requirements of operators which  
are otherwise not addressed.

It seems to me that hosting companies who do not provide access (and  
hence who don't qualify for PI space under the current harmonised RIR  
v6 policies) ought to have a lot to say about this, more so than  
enterprises in some respects (e.g. due to the impact of shim6 state  
on load balancers and servers).


More information about the NANOG mailing list