Re: [RRG] Elegance and the rejection of SHIM6 host-based multihoming

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

I'd like to point out that "rejecting" shim6 isn't within the
ISPs' or even site operators' remit. The real issue is whether
o/s implementors care to include shim6 code in their stacks or
not. If they do, shim6 will self-deploy; if they don't, it won't.

(Pretty much the same is true of SCTP, except that it also
requires transport-using applications to be updated too. And no
doubt the same will be true of multipath transport when some
code comes along.)

What the ISPs have done, and some large users too, is state
that shim6 doesn't solve all their problems. Well, it wasn't
intended to -- to be blunt, it's the best that benighted protocol
designers could do absent any sign of change in the routing
system. Viewed from the multi6 WG in 2005, it seemed axiomatic that
we couldn't expect any change in routing on any reasonable timescale.
Three years later, we have shim6 code but no change in routing.

We should probably use RRG cycles to figure out how to change
routing.

    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