shim6 @ NANOG

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at
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  
> security
> 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 [] how  
do you know that this is bad while if Paypal sends you a packet with  
[] 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 mailing list