On 14-Oct-2005, at 14:48, David Conrad wrote:
On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, 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.
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my
impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution,
but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my impression incorrect?
There is no shortage of rough corners to file down, and I am behind
on my shim6 mail, but the general idea is to let end sites multi-home
in the "bag-o-PA-prefixes" style and let the nodes within that site
use their multiple globally-unique addresses (one per upstream, say)
to allow sessions to survive rehoming events.
Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above
and beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked
and real) would present a threat to ISPs?
If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else
is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be
implemented in any near term timeframe and it will take a very long
time for existing v6 stacks to be upgraded to support shim6. What
I suspect will be required is real _site_ multihoming. Something
that will take existing v6 customer sites and allow them to be
multi-homed without modification to each and every v6 stack within
the site.
For end sites, that's a wildly-held opinion.
For ISPs, it's not required, since ISPs can already multi-home in the
manner you describe, using PI addresses and BGP.
Joe
