On Fri, 24 Feb 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
1) Traffic engineering, traffic engineering and traffic engineeringI 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.
I think it should be considered whose problem shim6 is aimed at solving and whose side shim6 development should be one. ISPs want to do TE, customers want to work around it (perhaps).
In my book, TE is evil and ISPs should be lossless and efficient. TE is just evil patching.
I like the fact that shim6 discourages end users from getting their own address space and AS number just because of redundancy and multihoming, and I definately like the fact that I will be able to move between IPs due to mobility, and keep my ssh session up during this move. I really hate shutting down my ssh sessions just because I go from wireless to wired mode. Without "screen" I would hate it even more.
This has to take precedence over some ISPs desire to do TE. Perhaps if their routers could be smaller and simpler due to smaller TCAM space need, they could afford to upgrade their links instead of doing a lot of TE to work around the bw problem. Their job is to move the packets the customer sends to them, and shim6 is an enduser feature and they shouldn't bother about it.
-- Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike@swm.pp.se