Re: shim6 (was Re: IPv6 news)

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 Valdis.Kletnieks () vt edu wrote:

> On Fri, 14 Oct 2005 21:39:58 +0200, Daniel Roesen said:
>
> > Nope. The ULID is supposed to be static, globally unique. Just not
> > globally routed. Seperating topology from identification.
> >
> > Something I didn't see discussed yet is that shim6 sites would need to
> > get a globally unique, provider independent /48 or larger... which folks
> > could start to announce. But I guess that address space would come from
> > blocks earmarked as "non-routable, it's a bogon, bad IP space, filter in
> > BGP at first sight!". :-)
>
> You know, if you describe it that way too many times, people who are
> only paying half-attention are going to say "IPv6 has something almost
> like NAT, only different".

you know... shim6 could make 'source address' pointless, you COULD just do
NAT instead :) or do shim6 which looks like NAT ... if you don't get the
host auth parts correct/done-well you might even be able to send traffic
off to the 'wrong' place :) it'll be neat!