shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Wed Mar 1 06:00:53 UTC 2006

On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:

> Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF  
> telling us to
> "sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".

Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too  
few operators involved in designing it. This has evidently led to a  
widespread perception of an ivory tower with a moat around it.

> This attitude combined with Shim6's (many) limitations speed it  
> toward irrelevance.

To gain real relevance it needs to be deployed; to be deployed, it  
needs to be embraced by enterprise operators and content providers.

If these operators dismiss it out of hand on principal, and refuse to  
actually find out whether the general approach is able to solve  
problems or not, then irrelevance does indeed seem inevitable.  
However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.

How about some actual technical complaints about shim6? The jerking  
knees become tedious to watch, after a while.

Joe