Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)

[David Barak <thegameiam () yahoo com>]

--- Michael.Dillon () btradianz com wrote:

> > Resounding YES - I specifically DON'T want
> end-hosts
> > to be able to make these decisions, but need to be
> > able to multihome.
>
> When I see comments like this I wonder whether
> people
> understand what shim6 is all about. First of all,
> these
> aren't YOUR hosts. They belong to somebody else. If
> you
> are an access provider then these hosts belong to a
> customer
> that is paying you to carry packets. This customer
> also
> pays another ISP for the same service and the hosts
> are making decisions about whether to use your
> service
> or your competitors. 
>
> If you are a hosting provider, then these hosts,
> owned 
> by a third party, are making decisions about whether
> to
> send you packets through one or another AS.
>
> Is there something inherently wrong with independent
> organizations deciding where to send their packets?

That's not the case I'm discussing - I'm talking about
the multihomed enterprise.  From an access provider
point of view, Shim6 is no worse/better than the
various TE-fu devices which end customers use - it
makes predicting load a bit more difficult, but it's
just bits to be passed.  From an enterprise POV I want
two or three decision points which I need to monitor
and manage, not 10,000.

> P.S. I don't believe that shim6 will ever succeed.

Neither do I.



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