Re: Open question and Critical dependencies

[Dave Crocker <dhc2@dcrocker.net>]

Brian,

> > >  Forgive me, but I do not see what it is about shim6 that
> > >  cannot work equally
> > >  well for IPv4.
> > >
>  IPv4 doesn't have a 64 bit routing prefix.
>  IPv4 doesn't have an interface identifier field.
>  IPv4 doesn't have a flow label field.
>  IPv4 doesn't have extension headers.

I wasn't asking for a detailing of differences between 4 and 6.

I was/am asking what it was about the shim work that requires taking advantage
of features specific to 6.

Does/will shim6 do something special with the 64-bit routing prefix?  If so,
what?

Does/will shim6 use the interface identifier field?  If so, how and why?

Does/will shim6 rely on the flow label field?  Why?

Does/will shim6 use extension headers?  Why?



>  IPv4 doesn't have the same scaling goals as IPv6.

so?  what are the technical characteristics of the shim work that distinguish
between these differences in goal?


>  IPv4 does have widely deployed NAT already.

Predicting that the end-user population is going to stop using something it
has come to rely on is just a tad dangerous.

The fact that nat's are deployed for a variety of reasons keeps getting
ignored.


  d/
  ---
  Dave Crocker
  Brandenburg InternetWorking
  +1.408.246.8253
  dcrocker  a t ...
  WE'VE MOVED to:  www.bbiw.net