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
