[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
On 26-okt-2005, at 18:08, Geoff Huston wrote:
Public thanks to Dave, Geoff, Vijay, Ted and Jason for their
involvement in bringing shim6 to the NANOG conference.
I just looked at the stream and I can't say that this made me vary
happy. </understatement>
Some of the comments made were nothing short of ridiculous, with
people claiming authority over the traffic engineering decisions made
by their _customers_. Understanding of what shim6 is and what it does
was sorely lacking.
The messages I heard were:
1) Traffic engineering, traffic engineering and traffic engineering
I guess we'll have to take this one to heart. I believe this means
decent traffic engineering must be in the first version of the specs.
- do NOT put this in the hands of the end system, this needs to
be site level, or at the very least the site needs to be able to
override the end system's decisions.
This is doable if we support proxy shim6 in middleboxes.
Doing shim6 in a middlebox for a legacy host may be challenging, but
worthwhile because it makes deployment so much easier.
But doing part of shim6 in middleboxes (the part that relates to
traffic engineering and other policy stuff) and part on the hosts
shouldn't be too hard.
2) The first hit is of critical importance to content providers (many
of whom couldn't legitimately justify a /32). Hunting through DNS to
find a locator that works won't fly.
Right. So how do we solve this? Second shim? Shim-before-syn?
3) It was good to hear in a widespread forum that shim6 is not
expected to be THE only multihoming solution. However, we were left
uninformed as to where the other work is going on.
Time to dust off geographical aggregation, I guess.
Iljitsch
--
I've written another book! http://www.runningipv6.net/