shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Christian Kuhtz kuhtzch at
Wed Mar 1 06:06:53 UTC 2006

On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

> 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.

One man's perception is another man's reality. ;-)

> 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.

Would that really be so bad?  I keep being bonked on the head by this  
thing called Moore's law.

I think until you slay the daemon of default global reachability  
(which is counter to everything IP), draining the swamp is an  
exercise in futility.  Controlling the flooding OTOH is a creative  

More information about the NANOG mailing list