--On March 2, 2006 3:15:59 PM +0100 Iljitsch van Beijnum <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 2-mrt-2006, at 14:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Clearly, it would be extremely unwise for an ISP or >> an enterprise to rely on shim6 for multihoming. Fortunately >> they won't have to do this because the BGP multihoming >> option will be available. > > I guess you have a better crystal ball than I do. > > One thing is very certain: today, a lot of people who have their own PI > or even PA block with IPv4, don't qualify for one with IPv6. While it's > certainly possible that the rules will be changed such that more people > can get an IPv6 PI or PA block, it is EXTREMELY unlikely that this will > become as easy as with IPv4. > Possibly, but, if that is true, then, to that extent, it will delay or prevent the adoption of IPv6 by those people. > Ergo: some people who multihome with BGP in IPv4 today won't be able to > do the same with IPv6. And if you manage to get a PI or PA block you > will very likely find that deaggregating won't work nearly as well with > IPv6 as it does with IPv4. > And why would those people consider migrating to IPv6? > So learn to love shim6 or help create something better. Complaining > isn't going to solve anything. I'm trying to create something better. I doubt many people in the operational community will ever learn to love shim6. Owen -- If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
pgpfiKVFebhS8.pgp
Description: PGP signature