Re: IPv6 news

[Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>]

On 14-Oct-2005, at 11:27, Daniel Roesen wrote:

> On Fri, Oct 14, 2005 at 10:57:59AM -0400, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> > The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since
> > those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI
> > addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end  
> > sites.
>
> But isn't a solution for many (most?) of them, EVEN if it would be
> universally implemented everywhere[tm].

Agreed, the solution space of current IPv4 multi-homing practice is  
larger than that of shim6.

I think it is far too early to judge how many end sites might find  
shim6 an acceptable solution, however -- I'd wait for some  
measurement and modelling before I made declarations about that, and  
the measurement and modelling is arguably of limited use until the  
protocol elements come out of the oven.

I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that edge-adaptive traffic  
engineering (along the lines of that carried out by many peer-to-peer  
applications) is necessarily inferior to traffic engineering carried  
out by upstream ISPs, however, which is something that I often hear.  
The balance of goodness depends on far too many variables to pre- 
judge, and there are philosophical arguments in favour of both  
approaches.


Joe