nanog mailing list archives
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
From: David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 08:22:01 -0800 (PST)
--- Joe Abley <jabley () isc org> wrote:
How about some actual technical complaints about shim6? The jerking knees become tedious to watch, after a while.
Okay, if I'm an enterprise with 6 ISPs but don't qualify for PI space, I'll need to get PA space from all of them, for Shim6 to work, right? Then each server on my network is going to need to maintain state for 6 different contexts for each of the various external customers who attempt to reach them. Assuming that I have busy servers, that's a whole lot of state. It's cheaper and easier to upgrade or modify N routers than the M servers behind them, given that M is certainly greater than N, and in many cases in multiple orders of magnitude greater. Also, the current drafts don't support middleboxes, which a huge number of enterprises use - in fact the drafts specifically preclude their existence, which renders this a complete non-starter for most of my clients. My single biggest issue here however is the complexity: given that today's architecture can deliver relatively simple and robust multihoming to enterprises, and rerouting DOES work today for persistent sessions (albeit imperfectly), what is the benefit to be gained from doing something this hard? As far as I can tell, the whole reason for these discussions is the insistence on the strict PA-addressing model, with no ability to advertise PA space to other providers. I think that we could spend our time better in coming up with a different approach to addressing hierarchy instead. Besides, /48s are cheap now, but if every enterprise gets multiple /48s from multiple providers, they might become dear more quickly than is desired. -David David Barak Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise: http://www.listentothefranchise.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
Current thread:
- Re: absense of multicast deployment, (continued)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Edward B. DREGER (Mar 03)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Christian Kuhtz (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) bmanning (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)