nanog mailing list archives
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 19:24:22 -0500
On 1-Mar-2006, at 18:29, Randy Bush wrote:
You will note I have glossed over several hundred minor details (and several hundred more not-so-minor ones). The protocols are not yet published; there is no known implementation.possibly this contributes to the sceptisim with which this is viewed?
Quite probably.However, if we're waiting for an implementation before we give our requirements for the protocol that was implemented, we should prepare to be disappointed.
("Yossarian!")
A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto larger ISPs, up to and including the largest.as it is not yet clear if small isps can get pi space, [...]
Actually, this part is most definitely non-fiction.According to the harmonised IPv6 management policy in effect across all the RIRs, anybody who can demonstrate an even vaguely plausible plan to connect 200 IPv6 customers within two years qualifies for a / 32 PI allocation.
I've assisted many small, tier-N ISPs to do just this (including hosting companies, for whom the connected customers were colocated customer servers).
Joe
Current thread:
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing, (continued)
- 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)