Shim6 vs PI addressing

Roland Dobbins rdobbins at cisco.com
Fri Mar 3 19:21:24 UTC 2006


On Mar 3, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

 >OTOH, hosts go a lot longer between upgrades and generally don't  
have professional admins.  It'll be a long, long >time (if ever)  
until shim6 is deployed widely enough for folks to literally bet  
their company on host-based >multihoming.

This issue alone means that shim6 isn't viable.  Besides the already- 
mentioned security and complexity issues, enterprise IT departments -  
i.e., the customers who need multihoming and cannot live without it -  
are not going to be amused when told that the tens and hundreds of  
thousands of desktops, laptops, PDAs, and other IP-enabled devices on  
their networks are now essentially routers, with multiple IP  
addresses and complex middleware required to simply access 'the  
Internet' . . . they're starved for resources and talent like  
everyone else, and the network is -not- their business, simply a  
means to an end.  It's all overhead, to them.

Many customers have trouble simply supporting (and patching/ 
upgrading) basic OS and apps and IPv4.  Expecting them to support  
something like shim6 is as unrealistic as expecting them to re- 
address at the drop of a hat due to changing business relationships  
with their SPs (see RFC 4192 for an exposition on the effort required  
to renumber, and discussion on the concept of network renumbering as  
a frequent procedure).


----------------------------------------------------------------------
Roland Dobbins <rdobbins at cisco.com> // 408.527.6376 voice

      Everything has been said.  But nobody listens.

                    -- Roger Shattuck




More information about the NANOG mailing list