Re: Shim6 proxies

["Per Heldal" <heldal@eml.cc>]

[receipient-list trimmed]
On Mon, 24 Apr 2006 19:04:34 -0400 (EDT), "Jason Schiller
[snip]
> Agreed.  To put it another way, if shim6 is not useful to largish
> enterprise customers and content providers, then they are not likely to
> turn it on, especially if it add complexity like policy routing or
> holding
> lots of state on content servers.  So unless you only want shim6 to be
> useful as a peer-to-peer technology for consumner customers figure out
> how
> to eaither add value to the business enterprise customers and content
> providers, or at least make it non-invasive to them as Scott is
> attempting.

Does anybody really believe that shim6 as described in current drafts is
the final product? Isn't that like IPv<anything> without dynamic routing
protocols or TCP without SLB-products just to mention a couple examples?
Remember how hard a sell IPv4 was up against IPX in the late 80s, early
90s, for very similar reasons?

At this stage we are, as with any technology development, uncovering
functional requirements to make it work in the real world. Hence
operational concerns are very welcome. It is too early to dismiss shim6.
Let's at least wait a few years until there are a few implementations
and some practical experience before we do so.

Guess it boils down to a choice of looking at such issues as
"problems" or "challenges".

//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/