shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at
Thu Mar 2 21:44:01 UTC 2006

On 2-mrt-2006, at 22:27, Owen DeLong wrote:

>> 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.

I agree that this is a possibility.

So I guess we'll have to choose between an IPv6 that's better than  
IPv4 but people don't want it, or an IPv6 that people want but it has  
the same inherent problems as IPv4. Hm...

>> 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?

Because they can't get IPv4 addresses or so many other people use  
IPv6 (because _they_ can't get IPv4 addresses) that communicating  
with them natively is important.

But today there are still enough IPv4 addresses (I just checked: we  
still have 1444.12 million addresses or 86.08 /8s) so that won't  
happen for a few more years.

>> 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.

Stranger things have happened. Some people actually like NAT...

More information about the NANOG mailing list