Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

Robert E. Seastrom rs at seastrom.com
Mon Mar 12 19:00:03 UTC 2012


Ryan Malayter <malayter at gmail.com> writes:

> On Mar 12, 10:07 am, "Robert E. Seastrom" <r... at seastrom.com> wrote:
>> It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
>> whatsoever.  That later turned into a single prototype implementation
>> of shim6 for linux.  As much as I tried to keep an open mind about
>> shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment
>> in protocol design.  Somewhere along the line I started publicly
>> referring to it as "sham6".  I'm sure I'm not the only person who came
>> to that conclusion.
>>
>
> I thought the IETF required two inter-operable implementations for
> protocols. Or was that just for standards-track stuff?

Rough consensus and working code is soooooo 1993.

-r





More information about the NANOG mailing list