nanog mailing list archives
Re: IPv6 news
From: Tony Li <tony.li () tony li>
Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:29:02 -0700
So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6 ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should contribute it. Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated requirements. There was no tractable solution found to all requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as basically fatal.
Tony
Current thread:
- Re: IPv6 news, (continued)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Simon Lyall (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Jeroen Massar (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Per Heldal (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news Randy Bush (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Susan Harris (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Christopher L. Morrow (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 14)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Joe Abley (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news John Payne (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Paul Vixie (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news David Conrad (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 15)
- Re: IPv6 news Mark Smith (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Tony Li (Oct 16)
- Re: IPv6 news Michael . Dillon (Oct 17)