nanog mailing list archives
Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing
From: Andy Davidson <andy () nosignal org>
Date: Mon, 06 Mar 2006 08:11:13 +0000
Roland Dobbins wrote:
On Mar 3, 2006, at 10:50 AM, Stephen Sprunk wrote:> OTOH, hosts go a lot longer between upgrades and generally don't have > professional admins. It'll be a long, long time (if ever) until shim6 > is deployed widely enough for folks to literally bet their company on > host-based multihoming. This issue alone means that shim6 isn't viable. Besides the already- mentioned security and complexity issues, enterprise IT departments - i.e., the customers who need multihoming and cannot live without it - are not going to be amused when told that the tens and hundreds of thousands of desktops, laptops, PDAs, and other IP-enabled devices on their networks are now essentially routers, with multiple IP addresses and complex middleware required to simply access 'the Internet' . . .
We've been here before; we shift a lot of data in the content arena, and our web-head loadbalancers, installed only a year ago, don't even support ipv6 in the current software build.
-a
Current thread:
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing, (continued)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jared Mauch (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Todd Vierling (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Roland Dobbins (Mar 03)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andy Davidson (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)