Re: IPv6 news

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:

> On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
>
>
> > > Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP  
> > > tricks
> > > that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4  
> > > either.
> > > But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support  
> > > shim6, as
> >
> > shim6 is:
> > 1) not baked
> > 2) not helpful for transit as's
> > 3) not a reality
>
> Not baked is absolutely correct, and not a reality follows readily  
> from that, as viewed by an operator.
>
> I'm interested in (2), though. Shim6 is not intended to be a  
> solution for transit ASes. If you're an ISP, then you can get PI  
> address space and multi-home in the normal way with BGP.

*IF* you're a big enough ISP.  There are (a few) ISPs with few enough  
customers that they'd have to "exaggerate" plans to get the same  
level of multihoming that they do with their legacy IPv4 allocations...

Also, are people going to consider accepting longer than /32s from  
their direct peers? (not for global transit, just peering)... in this  
case I'm thinking about those networks who do inconsistant  
announcements at various NAPs for "in-country" and other reasons.