Re: [RRG] Arguments against Transport...

[Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter@gmail.com>]

On 2008-05-22 13:04, Robin Whittle wrote:
...
> There has been discussion of "Transport" solutions.  If that means
> SHIM6,

Not in my book. Shim6 is by definition a shim *below* the transport
layer. In deference to Tony's request, I won't comment on the
misrepresentation of shim6 below, but I will respond on one
general point.

> this doesn't provide multihoming in a way which can be
> managed per site, rather than per host - and it only works with IPv6
> between hosts which are upgraded.  SHIM6 (or Six/One - not Six/One
> Router) does not provide portability of address space between
> providers, which is one of the major reasons for end-users wanting
> their own PI address space.

See slides 11 through 17 at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/RRG0508.pdf
for my views on this topic. Frankly, I think that eventually,
enterprise IT people will understand that running multiple IPv6
prefixes when they have multiple ISPs, and adding and deleting
prefixes, is *not* an operational nightmare, but that lies in
the future.

>  Also, SHIM6 is not backwards
> compatible, unless it is accepted that the multihoming can only be
> provided for packets sent from from upgraded hosts.
> 
> What other "Transport" proposals are there?  

SCTP. Running code, like shim6.

    Brian

--
to unsubscribe send a message to rrg-request@psg.com with the
word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body.
archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg