shim6 @ NANOG

Joe Abley jabley at
Sun Mar 5 22:51:06 UTC 2006

On 5-Mar-2006, at 17:03, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

> All this time, energy, and thought spent on shim6 would have been  
> better spent on a scalable IDR solution.  Luckily, we still have  
> another decade or so to come up with something.

So the answer to the lack of a routing solution to multi-homing in v6  
is to proceed as if we do have one, and hope that one appears at some  
point in the future before the lack of one causes too much pain?

Very little time has been spent on shim6 so far. Far more time before  
that was spent on multi6, which considered many different approaches  
to multi-homing.

Note that I'm not saying that the IETF process in general (and the  
multi6/shim6 process in particular) have been without dysfunction;  
however, I think your characterisation that "there has never been any  
significant work done on replacing CIDR with something that scales  
better" is a little misleading.


More information about the NANOG mailing list