Re: shim6 @ NANOG

From: Joe Abley (no email)
Date: Sun Mar 05 2006 - 17:51:06 EST

  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "Re: Presumed RF Interference"

    On 5-Mar-2006, at 17:03, Stephen Sprunk wrote:

    > All this time, energy, and thought spent on shim6 would have been
    > better spent on a scalable IDR solution. Luckily, we still have
    > another decade or so to come up with something.

    So the answer to the lack of a routing solution to multi-homing in v6
    is to proceed as if we do have one, and hope that one appears at some
    point in the future before the lack of one causes too much pain?

    Very little time has been spent on shim6 so far. Far more time before
    that was spent on multi6, which considered many different approaches
    to multi-homing.

    Note that I'm not saying that the IETF process in general (and the
    multi6/shim6 process in particular) have been without dysfunction;
    however, I think your characterisation that "there has never been any
    significant work done on replacing CIDR with something that scales
    better" is a little misleading.

    Joe


  • Next message: Iljitsch van Beijnum: "Re: Presumed RF Interference"





    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs



    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD