shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
tme at multicasttech.com
Fri Mar 3 03:13:41 UTC 2006
On Mar 1, 2006, at 10:45 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote:
>> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>>> Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
>>> -- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to
>>> people whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual
>>> device, and to do so in a scaleable way.
>> Only if *everybody* has a shim6 capable stack...
> Not quite -- the practical usefulness of the multi-homing increases
> with the deployment of shim6-capable stacks. You could imagine a
> threshold of server and host upgrades which would provide useful
> multi-homing a good proportion of the time without universal
> If Linux and the currently-supported variants of Windows were to be
> updated to support shim6, and we waited through three or four
> widely-publicised security vulnerabilities which required OS/kernel
> upgrades, perhaps that would be sufficient deployment for the
> benefits of shim6 to be felt, most of the time. My hands are waving
> again, of course.
I have to object to this here; your hands are not waving nearly hard
This was exactly the same mistake that was made with IGMPv3, which
finalized around the time of the Adelaide IETF (i.e., almost exactly
6 years ago).
1.) It took about 4 years for Windows variants with IGMPv3 support to
dominate the Windows logs in my web servers.
(By dominate, I mean > 80% of hits from windows machines.) In
February of this year,
Windows 98 (non IGMPv3 capable) was still 2% of the total web hits,
compared to 0.56 % for all flavors of Linux and 0.03% for all flavors
2.) The Mac (8% of web hits in February 2006), still doesn't have it.
3.) So IGMPv3 deployment in hosts _at this instant_ is almost
certainly less than 90%.
4.) Partially as a result, SSM deployment is still miniscule.
That's after 6 years.
I would be surprised if Shim6 going into actual deployed boxes was
any faster. So, if Shim6 was finalized today, which it won't be, in
2010 we might have 70% deployment and in 2012 we might have 90%
I actually think that 2012 would be a more realistic date for 70%
deployment of Shim6, given the lack of running code and a finalized
In my opinion, that doesn't imply that Shim6 should be abandoned. But
it does mean IMHO that regarding it as a
means to spur IPv6 deployment is just not realistic.
> I feel fairly certain I have exceeded some kind of unenforced
> posting threshold to this list in the last twelve hours. I will try
> hard to be quiet for a while, now :-)
More information about the NANOG