Re: shim6 @ NANOG

[Iljitsch van Beijnum <iljitsch () muada com>]

On 6-mrt-2006, at 2:34, Steven M. Bellovin wrote:

> What Tony said, especially about what happened to 8+8.  A lot of the
> grounds for rejection were security, but there wasn't a single  
> security
> person on the committee.  In my opinion, most of the arguments just
> didn't hold up.

[RB = routing bits, IB = identity bits]

So when I send you an 8+8 packet where [RB=me+IB=www.paypal.com] how  
do you know that this is bad while if Paypal sends you a packet with  
[RB=paypal+IB=www.paypal.com] that's good?

Also, how does 8+8 accomplish failover?

Original 8+8/GSE is incomplete. If you add the necessary extra stuff  
and think about backward compatibility for a while, you end up with  
something that's extremely close to shim6. If we add source address  
rewriting to shim6 (which is certainly doable) the family resemblence  
becomes even clearer.