Fred,
On 2010-07-26 17:02, Fred Baker wrote:
...
> BTW, I have a similar opinion of shim6, although the wording of the argument
> is different. shim6 makes the entire network PA, which is good for the
> transit networks, and makes multihomed edge networks bear the complexity
> burden of maintaining routing for each prefix they use throughout their
> networks. The edge, I fear, lacks either motivation or expertise to offload
> the complexity from the transit core.
To be precise, I believe that it's the basic IPv6 addressing model, in which
a site or a host may simultaneously use as many different prefixes as it
cares to, that creates the routing and administrative burden on sites.
SHIM6 simply makes use of that model, and inherits the burden.
There's a fair amount of evidence from the real world that site IT managers
don't like that burden, being accustomed to the IPv4 world where you're
lucky if you even get one prefix of your own.
Also see draft-troan-multihoming-without-nat66, which very directly
addresses this question.
Brian
_______________________________________________
rrg mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.irtf.org/mailman/listinfo/rrg
