[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
On Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:08:42 +0100, "Iljitsch van Beijnum"
> On 26-okt-2005, at 18:08, Geoff Huston wrote:
> > Public thanks to Dave, Geoff, Vijay, Ted and Jason for their
> > involvement in bringing shim6 to the NANOG conference.
> I just looked at the stream and I can't say that this made me vary
> happy. </understatement>
> Some of the comments made were nothing short of ridiculous, with
> people claiming authority over the traffic engineering decisions made
> by their _customers_. Understanding of what shim6 is and what it does
> was sorely lacking.
I share most of your views, but you are missing an important point:
Frustration in the ops-community stems from inconsistency between
operational policies and technical capabilities.
* Current V4 multihomers (content providers in particular) are not
willing to adopt V6 without a MH-solution.
* RIRs currently don't support MH for v6 endsites.
* shim6 is currently the only technical initiative to bring MH to V6. It
is therefore expected to bring any and all MH and TM-related
functionality from day 1 (even far beyond just what's possible with
BGP-tweaks). That is about as realistic as expecting to find
features related to stateful inspection of packet-streams in modern
products (firewalls, load-balancers etc) explicitly described in the
In 5 or 10 years, when supporting tools are in place for (near-)
immediate renumbering or to add/remove prefixes to/from sites of *any*
size including directory (DNS .. whatever) updates, and with tools to
manage/coordinate traffic on any number of shim6-capable boxes within a
site this will no longer be an issue.
In the meantime, if we want to give shim6 (or alternatives) time to
evolve there are 2 options.
- Openly and wholehartedly discourage v6 deployment for purposes where
global reachability is expected till the technology is complete.
. or .
- Work with the RIRs, possibly with recommendations through IANA, to
implement routing-policies for v6 which will work with existing