On 2008-05-22 13:04, Robin Whittle wrote: ... > There has been discussion of "Transport" solutions. If that means > SHIM6,
Not in my book. Shim6 is by definition a shim *below* the transport layer. In deference to Tony's request, I won't comment on the misrepresentation of shim6 below, but I will respond on one general point. > this doesn't provide multihoming in a way which can be > managed per site, rather than per host - and it only works with IPv6 > between hosts which are upgraded. SHIM6 (or Six/One - not Six/One > Router) does not provide portability of address space between > providers, which is one of the major reasons for end-users wanting > their own PI address space. See slides 11 through 17 at http://www.cs.auckland.ac.nz/~brian/RRG0508.pdf for my views on this topic. Frankly, I think that eventually, enterprise IT people will understand that running multiple IPv6 prefixes when they have multiple ISPs, and adding and deleting prefixes, is *not* an operational nightmare, but that lies in the future. > Also, SHIM6 is not backwards > compatible, unless it is accepted that the multihoming can only be > provided for packets sent from from upgraded hosts. > > What other "Transport" proposals are there? SCTP. Running code, like shim6. Brian -- to unsubscribe send a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with the word 'unsubscribe' in a single line as the message text body. archive: <http://psg.com/lists/rrg/> & ftp://psg.com/pub/lists/rrg
