[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: I-D ACTION:draft-ietf-shim6-applicability-01.txt
El 14/06/2006, a las 16:25, Daniel Roesen escribió:
On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 03:55:43PM +0300, marcelo bagnulo braun wrote:
consider a home network consisting of 10 pcs, a couple of printers,
distributed in 2 LANs and with 2 dsl lines to different providers.
Do you think that the shim6 solution would be suitable for this
configuration?
Depends on the requirements. It wouldn't fulfil mine.
could you enumerate those requirements that you have that wouldn't be
fulfilled by the shim6 solution?
e.g. enforced(!), centrally administered site-wide policy,
so for the 10 pcs network that you have at home, you need centrally
enforced policy that cannot be configured in the hosts.... do you
really think this is a common requirement for a small home network?
Note well that what the shim6 seems to lack is the centrally
enforcement capapbility, not the central management capability (central
mannagement can be introduced by site wide distribution of the rfc3484
polcity table for instance)
incl. traffic
engineering inbound and outbound.
agree with this one
there is some level of TE that you can achieve with a shim like
solution, for instance based on address selection. (using RFC3484
policy table) such TE tools should provide you stuff like primary
backup, load sharing and the like.
agree that maybe there are more advanced TE capabilities that are not
provided by the shim, but again, what are the TE capabilities needed
for a home network with 10 pcs?
With no way for hosts to make their
own decisions,
why do you need that in a home network with 10 pcs?
nothing to (re)configure,
not sure what do you mean about this one...
no DNS complexity,
the dns configuration that is required by the shim is to include
multiple AAAA records, one per avialble address, do you call this DNS
complexity?
no wastage
of bandwidth for keepalive,
well, all fault tolerance solutions imply bandwidth consumption in
order to determine whichc links are up and down... not sure how it
would be possible to deal with this otherwise... any ideas?
no communication setup delays (the slow DSL
line have already high latency, don't want to add anything to that)
etc.
shim6 support deferred setup so no latency in the general case.
perhaps there is a way to extend/modify the shim6 solution to cover
those...
I can't see any, as it's a host multihoming solution, not a site
multihoming solution. The things I'm primarily missing (aside "keep it
simple on the host end, they don't even get TCP right") are site
multihoming features that you cannot sanely implement on hosts. But
I'm happy to be proven wrong. :-)
where i am heading to: shim6 should be a reasonable solution for small
sites (at least). I accept that big sites may require the enforcement
and that this is hardly provided by the shim as it is now, but i would
argue that this is not the case for smallish sites...
Regards, marcelo
Best regards,
Daniel
--
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr@cluenet.de -- dr@IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0