Re: Shim6, was: Re: filtering /48 is going to be necessary

["Robert E. Seastrom" <rs () seastrom com>]

Doug Barton <dougb () dougbarton us> writes:

> On 3/11/2012 3:15 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> > But ARIN's action meant it never had a chance. I really don't get why they felt the need to start allowing IPv6 PI 
> > after a decade
>
> Because as far back as 2003 ARIN members (and members from all the other
> RIRs for that matter) were saying in very clear terms that PI space was
> a requirement for moving to v6. No one wanted to lose the provider
> independence that they had gained with v4. Without that, v6 was a total
> non-starter.
>
> ARIN was simply listening to its members.

It didn't help that there was initially no implementation of shim6
whatsoever.  That later turned into a single prototype implementation
of shim6 for linux.  As much as I tried to keep an open mind about
shim6, eventually it became clear that this was a Gedankenexperiment
in protocol design.  Somewhere along the line I started publicly
referring to it as "sham6".  I'm sure I'm not the only person who came
to that conclusion.

Grass-roots, bottom-up policy process
+
Need for multihoming
+
Got tired of waiting
=
IPv6 PI

-r