shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
kuhtzch at corp.earthlink.net
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