[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]

To: Robin Whittle <rw at firstpr.com.au>
Subject: Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
From: Brian E Carpenter <brian.e.carpenter at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 27 Jun 2007 11:39:36 +0200
Cc: ram at iab.org
Dkim-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=Us3o1Coka1ApcWtiHIig6hAqGoWsy9LrsZR0uBdoSwxO+x9QH0wzEveeFZPW5CZS665SBp/x2F+sZnkqXsdM0SZY1jJ9wIzjVnQZuc5UQGKiQre4sO+BThqWu0JAY6B/jfcyZdKnQica6vUYKlUeqSSp4BelsvURaewel5A1OQE=
Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=dWTAuqy5YwncJPBfLOxFiZAFofmOc70YIjZLUJwA2x1w3OaWyVreHkaGtgThisknPPRwZCkVm23c12EtCA3v76Xwru+GU88+aRp15uTxEymGK7ieJI+WpPEoUWjyLlLNQWi7EndBpZWy7BoNsU4Z1l1c4f1RAqXTHd1z7xFHbJo=
In-reply-to: <46807138.6090705@firstpr.com.au>
List-archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ram>
List-help: <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=help>
List-id: Routing and Addressing Mailing List <ram.iab.org>
List-post: <mailto:ram@iab.org>
List-subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram>, <mailto:ram-request@iab.org?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <20070622134152.57A4C872D7@mercury.lcs.mit.edu> <467D0C5C.6080004@firstpr.com.au> <467FCF66.6090207@zurich.ibm.com> <46807138.6090705@firstpr.com.au>
User-agent: Thunderbird 1.5.0.12 (Windows/20070509)

Robin,

Then what if the central control point has to change?  All the
hundreds or thousands of hosts need to be reconfigured.


That is a strong argument for making the central mechanism
self-deploying (whether it's done via DHCP, a routing
protocol, or however). Since we already have to spread
RFC 3484 policy from a central point in large enterprises,
spreading shim6 policy is really not a new problem.

But as I noted just now, I hope this can be avoided. Shim6
was really designed for the ten million small multihomed
sites, not for the ten thousand big ones.

...

So I don't think that we should expect SHIM6 alone to solve the problem of encouraging widespread adoption of IPv6 without PI space for AS-end-users.


We agree on that. I've always expected the big users to
have PI prefixes by one method or another.

    Brian

_______________________________________________
RAM mailing list
RAM at iab.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ram

References:
- Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)
  - From: Noel Chiappa
- Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)
  - From: Robin Whittle
- OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
  - From: Brian E Carpenter
- Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
  - From: Robin Whittle

Prev by Date: Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
Next by Date: Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
Previous by thread: Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
Next by thread: Re: OK, shim6, if we must [Re: [RAM] Ivip (was ViP ...)]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread