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

From: (no name) (no email)
Date: Thu Mar 02 2006 - 05:07:33 EST

  • Next message: Stephen Sprunk: "Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)"

    > > The scope of
    > > that policy mediation function depends strongly on
    > > people like you
    > > saying "at a high level, this is the kind of
    > > decision I am not happy
    > > with the hosts making".
    >
    > Resounding YES - I specifically DON'T want end-hosts
    > to be able to make these decisions, but need to be
    > able to multihome.

    When I see comments like this I wonder whether people
    understand what shim6 is all about. First of all, these
    aren't YOUR hosts. They belong to somebody else. If you
    are an access provider then these hosts belong to a customer
    that is paying you to carry packets. This customer also
    pays another ISP for the same service and the hosts
    are making decisions about whether to use your service
    or your competitors.

    If you are a hosting provider, then these hosts, owned
    by a third party, are making decisions about whether to
    send you packets through one or another AS.

    Is there something inherently wrong with independent
    organizations deciding where to send their packets?

    --Michael Dillon

    P.S. I don't believe that shim6 will ever succeed.


  • Next message: Stephen Sprunk: "Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD