2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
Kurt Erik Lindqvist
kurtis at kurtis.pp.se
Mon Mar 6 10:24:59 UTC 2006
On 6 mar 2006, at 11.10, Per Heldal wrote:
> On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:35:02 +0100, "Kurt Erik Lindqvist"
> <kurtis at kurtis.pp.se> said:
>> On 2 mar 2006, at 21.42, Andre Oppermann wrote:
>>> Putting routing decisions
>>> into the transport layer (4) as it is done or proposed with SCTP and
>>> SHIM6 is Total Evilness(tm) in my book.
>> Not that shim6 is a change to transport though, but a change at layer
> Isn't the fact that shim6 doesn't affect the forwarding-plane of
> an argument that is used to its advantage? It seems more like
> mingling the transport and session layers if anyone ask me (not
> that the
> old iso-model is all that relevant anymore imho).
Ok, so shim6 doesn't require a change to the transport layer and it
doesn't change the forwarding plane. It does create a mapping state
at the end-nodes. So claiming it to be either is probably wrong.
- kurtis -
More information about the NANOG