nanog mailing list archives
Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing]
From: Kurt Erik Lindqvist <kurtis () kurtis pp se>
Date: Mon, 6 Mar 2006 11:24:59 +0100
On 6 mar 2006, at 11.10, Per Heldal wrote:
On Sat, 4 Mar 2006 13:35:02 +0100, "Kurt Erik Lindqvist" <kurtis () kurtis pp se> said:On 2 mar 2006, at 21.42, Andre Oppermann wrote:Putting routing decisions into the transport layer (4) as it is done or proposed with SCTP and SHIM6 is Total Evilness(tm) in my book.Not that shim6 is a change to transport though, but a change at layer 3...Isn't the fact that shim6 doesn't affect the forwarding-plane of routers an argument that is used to its advantage? It seems more like something mingling the transport and session layers if anyone ask me (not that theold iso-model is all that relevant anymore imho).
Ok, so shim6 doesn't require a change to the transport layer and it doesn't change the forwarding plane. It does create a mapping state at the end-nodes. So claiming it to be either is probably wrong.
- kurtis -
Current thread:
- 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing], (continued)
- 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 03)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Edward B. DREGER (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 06)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Per Heldal (Mar 07)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Mark Newton (Mar 02)
- Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: Notes on design of IPv6 BGP multihoming with special subroute attributes (was - Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing) william(at)elan.net (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jared Mauch (Mar 01)