shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Thu Mar 2 21:27:35 UTC 2006

--On March 2, 2006 3:15:59 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum
<iljitsch at muada.com> wrote:

> 
> On 2-mrt-2006, at 14:49, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
> 
>> Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or
>> an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately
>> they won't have to do this because the BGP multihoming
>> option will be available.
> 
> I guess you have a better crystal ball than I do.
> 
> One thing is very certain: today, a lot of people who have their own  PI
> or even PA block with IPv4, don't qualify for one with IPv6. While  it's
> certainly possible that the rules will be changed such that more  people
> can get an IPv6 PI or PA block, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that  this will
> become as easy as with IPv4.
> 
Possibly, but, if that is true, then, to that extent, it will delay or
prevent the adoption of IPv6 by those people.

> Ergo: some people who multihome with BGP in IPv4 today won't be able  to
> do the same with IPv6. And if you manage to get a PI or PA block  you
> will very likely find that deaggregating won't work nearly as  well with
> IPv6 as it does with IPv4.
> 
And why would those people consider migrating to IPv6?

> So learn to love shim6 or help create something better. Complaining
> isn't going to solve anything.

I'm trying to create something better.  I doubt many people in the
operational
community will ever learn to love shim6.

Owen

-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mailman.nanog.org/pipermail/nanog/attachments/20060302/f4abe5b5/attachment.sig>