Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

From: Randy Bush (no email)
Date: Wed Mar 01 2006 - 18:29:34 EST

  • Next message: (no name): "Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)"

    >>> How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
    >> good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
    >> point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
    >> the two most common situation operators see
    >> o a large multi-homed enterprise customer
    > There are no documents describing deployment. Probably there should be.
    >
    > The general approach is presumably well-known (for those for whom it
    > is not, go browse around <http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/shim6-
    > charter.html>, and perhaps in particular <http://www.ietf.org/
    > internet-drafts/draft-ietf-shim6-proto-03.txt>.
    >
    > Deployment in an enterprise is a matter of:
    >
    > (a) deploying hosts with shim6-capable stacks within the enterprise;
    >
    > (b) arranging for those hosts to receive addresses in each PA
    > assignment made by each transit provider (multiple PA addresses per
    > interface), e.g. using dhcp6;
    >
    > (c) optionally, perhaps, installing shim6 middleware at some
    > suitable place between host and border in order to impose site policy
    > or modulate locator selection by the hosts.

    and this last will handle the normal site border (and these days
    intra-site, e.g., departmental, borders) issues such as
      o dns within the enterprise is isolated from that of outside
      o firewalls, algs, and sometimes nats
      o security policy in general
      o load balancing between upstreams
      o ...

    i.e, what handles the impedance mismatch between the goal, which
    is *site* multi-homing, and the tool, which is *host* multihoming?
    and how does it handle it, how is it managed, ...?

    > You will note I have glossed over several hundred minor details (and
    > several hundred more not-so-minor ones). The protocols are not yet
    > published; there is no known implementation.

    possibly this contributes to the sceptisim with which this is viewed?

    >> o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
    > A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from
    > their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto larger
    > ISPs, up to and including the largest.

    as it is not yet clear if small isps can get pi space, and the issue
    of multi-homing is central to the discussion of this issue, and
    routing table growth is another vector here, perhaps this needs to be
    explored a bit more.

    randy


  • Next message: (no name): "Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD