James,
On 2009-01-25 13:29, james woodyatt wrote:
...
> While SHIM6 is complicated, I would say that its main detraction as an
> alternative to NAT66 is that it doesn't have a very good incremental
> deployment story. It is, however, not the only way to design a shim
> layer aimed at giving us multi-homing and provider independence. I
> suspect there are better ways to address that problem, which would still
> require updates to existing IPv6 node implementations while allowing for
> a more incremental deployment than SHIM6 does.
I'd be interested to see a proof of concept that this can be done. There
was quite a lot of discussion of alternative approaches before the shim6
direction was chosen, reflected in RFC 4177, 4218 and 4219.
Brian
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
