Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

["Jason Schiller (schiller@uu.net)" <jason.schiller@mci.com>]

Maybe I am putting the cart before the horse.  I do admit that the shim6
protocol needs to be flushed out first.  My concern is that the horse is
capable of easily being hitched up to the cart.  We should not be
designing a protocol without keeping all of the TE possibilities in
mind.  We need to have a rough idea of how we plan to provide for each of
the current TE profiles so that any needed hooks can be added to the
protocol.  

The BGP based inter-AS TE scenarios I describe are currently being used by
business customers in the Internet today.  Without these or similar
functionalities, these business customers will consider IPv6 .not ready
for prime time. and will be unlikely to adopt IPv6 for revue generating or
mission critical traffic.  In short, without full support for TE, IPv6 is
not ready for business traffic.

When these customers are forced to IPv6 they will be unhappy about the
lack of support for their TE profile.

As Ted Seely from Sprint said, .Isn.t new technology supposed to be better
than the technology it replaced?.  In other words, why will people want to
migrate to a new technology that has less functionality?

The other possibility is what I am seeing now.  Operators are suggesting
that as there is no good way to provide for the current IPv4 TE
capabilities in IPv6, that we should simply de-aggrgegate into the global
routing table.  While this may not present a problem in the next year or
two, this may lead us to a place we don.t want to be at in the long term. 

I.m suggesting there must be some other way to provide current IPv4 style
TE capabilities for IPv6 without de-aggregating to the global Internet
routing table.  This can be in shim6 or 8+8 / GSE, or something else.  But
supporting the full suite of TE capabilities is a day 1 requirement for
business customers, not just loading all links and failover.

Is it the consensus of the shim6 working group that the full suite of TE
capabilities should not be a requirement?  Or is this just the opinion of
a few vocal people?

__Jason



==========================================================================
Jason Schiller                                               (703)886.6648
Senior Internet Network Engineer                         fax:(703)886.0512
Public IP Global Network Engineering                       schiller@uu.net
UUNET / Verizon                         jason.schiller@verizonbusiness.com

The good news about having an email address that is twice as long is that
it increases traffic on the Internet.