[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: addition of TLV to locator ID or locator ID set



Spencer Dawkins wrote:
On Sep 28, 2005, at 11:28 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:

But isn't there still the huge deployability problem caused by having to make upper layers and/or apps ignore the upper 64 bits in many places and make the lower 64 bits globally unique?


There's a huge deployability problem with getting shim6 into the hosts too.

Tony


I guess we're saying that huge=host IP implementations < huge=host IP implementations plus transports plus applications, but I take Tony's point that we are talking about relatively huge changes in either case :-)

Spencer

The reason I think shim6 is intrinsically much more deployable than 8+8
is that it doesn't force *any* change on ULPs. They can go on using
the current socket API for a hundred years if they want to.

What has to be deployed is a new IPv6 stack. One host at a time.
We know how to do that. It will take years, but it will happen,
due to routine operating system upgrades. And there are no
discontinuities of service - just progressive growth in the fraction
of sessions that can benefit from shim6.

Yes, it is a big change to the stack, but it's *only* the stack.

(I don't mean there won't also be changes in TE... but they are
not required for shim6 to be deployed and to support failover.)

   Brian