shim6 @ NANOG
Iljitsch van Beijnum
iljitsch at muada.com
Mon Mar 6 11:56:35 UTC 2006
On 6-mrt-2006, at 2:34, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:
> What Tony said, especially about what happened to 8+8. A lot of the
> grounds for rejection were security, but there wasn't a single
> person on the committee. In my opinion, most of the arguments just
> didn't hold up.
[RB = routing bits, IB = identity bits]
So when I send you an 8+8 packet where [RB=me+IB=www.paypal.com] how
do you know that this is bad while if Paypal sends you a packet with
[RB=paypal+IB=www.paypal.com] that's good?
Also, how does 8+8 accomplish failover?
Original 8+8/GSE is incomplete. If you add the necessary extra stuff
and think about backward compatibility for a while, you end up with
something that's extremely close to shim6. If we add source address
rewriting to shim6 (which is certainly doable) the family resemblence
becomes even clearer.
More information about the NANOG