On 2-mrt-2006, at 22:27, Owen DeLong wrote:
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 bl
>> The other PI assignment policies that have been proposed either
>> require that you have a /19 already in IPv4 (lots of hosting
>> companies don't have anything this size), or have tens/hundreds of
>> thousands of devices.
>
> It has also been suggested that the simple presence of
> multiho
Please consider also 2005-1 at
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2005_1.html
Owen
pgpg8cW8ERncu.pgp
Description: PGP signature
--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 becaus
On 2-mrt-2006, at 17:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you feel you should qualify as an LIR,
With RIPE, an LIR is simply an organization that pays the membership
fee and thus gets to submit requests for address space and AS
numbers. ARIN doesn't seem to use this terminology except in their
On 3/2/06 7:57 AM, "Edward B. DREGER" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
>> Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:07:33 +
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> [ snip ]
>
>> Is there something inherently wrong with independent
>> organizations deciding where to send their packets?
>
> 1. Many a transit seems to th
> If all of your hosting is "shared", the servers are your
> responsibility, and you're not providing connectivity to anyone but
> yourself. I don't think you qualify at all at this point.
>
> If you're selling dedicated servers or colo space, it's a little
> better, but I still don't think yo
On 2-mrt-2006, at 16:20, Mark Newton wrote:
Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how
to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes... I'm not sure we'll be there for a
few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs
to figure out what the Internet is going to look l
> So learn to love shim6 or help create something better. Complaining
> isn't going to solve anything.
I am helping to create something better by supporting
the IPv6 PI address policy on [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Go here http://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/index.html
to subscribe or to read the archives.
On Thu, Mar 02, 2006 at 03:51:43PM +0100, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >Now, some may take that as a sign the IETF needs to figure out how
> >to handle 10^6 BGP prefixes... I'm not sure we'll be there for a
> >few years with IPv6, but sooner or later we will, and someone needs
> >to f
Man, I hope I never become as cynical as you.
On 2-mrt-2006, at 11:09, Stephen Sprunk wrote:
Why is it even remotely rational that a corporate admin trust 100k+
hosts infested with worms, virii, spam, malware, etc. to handle
multihoming decisions?
They trust those hosts to do congestion c
On Mar 2, 2006, at 7:49 AM, [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.
Are you *sure* BGP multihoming will be avai
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.
> Putting the routing decisions in the hands of the servers(that we do
> not control) requires that we somehow impart this routing policy on
> our customers, make them keep it up to date when we change things,
> and somehow enforce that they don't break the policy.
> The same problems exist, o
On Mar 2, 2006, at 4:07 AM, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
ome.
When I see comments like this I wonder whether people
understand what shim6 is all about. First of all, these
aren't YOUR hosts. They belong to somebody else. If you
are an access provider then these hosts belong to a customer
that is
Date: Thu, 2 Mar 2006 10:07:33 +
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[ snip ]
Is there something inherently wrong with independent
organizations deciding where to send their packets?
1. Many a transit seems to think so.
2. Is there an inherent need?
3. Is this DPA+sourceroute cocktail the best met
--- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > Resounding YES - I specifically DON'T want
> end-hosts
> > to be able to make these decisions, but need to be
> > able to multihome.
>
> When I see comments like this I wonder whether
> people
> understand what shim6 is all about. First of all,
> these
> aren't
Thus spake "Joe Abley" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:55, David Barak wrote:
It isn't fearing change to ask the question "it's not
broken today, why should I fix it?"
What's broken today is that there's no mechanism available for people who
don't qualify for v6 PI space to multi-h
> > The scope of
> > that policy mediation function depends strongly on
> > people like you
> > saying "at a high level, this is the kind of
> > decision I am not happy
> > with the hosts making".
>
> Resounding YES - I specifically DON'T want end-hosts
> to be able to make these decisions, b
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Lucy E. Lynch wrote:
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed enterprise customer
o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
never under-estimate the range and productivity of Pekka!
ht
For those watching and grumbling, I'll move the discussion to a shim6
mailing list, or in private if anyone wants to continue beyond this.
Just make sure you cc: me if you move the discussion somewhere else.
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:55 PM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin Da
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 23:46:22 +
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
when/if a shim6 proof of concept is built,
Let's look at IPv4 options:
0x83 0x04 0x04 0x?? 0x?? 0x?? 0x??
usually doesn't make it very far. Try
% traceroute -n -g ip.of.some.router and.of.the.destination
from
On 1-Mar-2006, at 18:29, Randy Bush wrote:
You will note I have glossed over several hundred minor details (and
several hundred more not-so-minor ones). The protocols are not yet
published; there is no known implementation.
possibly this contributes to the sceptisim with which this is viewed
ok... i've slept some.
let me rephrase my agnst this way...
when/if a shim6 proof of concept is built,
THEN is the time to start debating the merits
of shim6 and setting policies on addressing plans.
Find one(or more) of the converted,
build the darned thing, run some tests, and
then there wil
>>> How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
>> good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
>> point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
>> the two most common situation operators see
>> o a large multi-homed enterprise customer
> There are no docu
Kevin Day wrote:
If you include "Web hosting company" in your definition of ISP, that's
not true. Unless you're providing connectivity to 200 or more networks,
you can't get a /32. If all of your use is internal(fully managed
hosting) or aren't selling leased lines or anything, you are not
On 1-Mar-2006, at 13:32, Kevin Day wrote:
We have peering arrangements with about 120 ASNs. How do we mix
BGP IPv6 peering and Shim6 for transit?
You advertise all your PA netblocks to all your peers.
Ok, I was a bit too vague there...
How do we ensure that peering connections are always
On Mar 1, 2006, at 9:07 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote:
If you include "Web hosting company" in your definition of ISP,
that's not true.
Right. I wasn't; I listed them separately.
It's important to note that even if you are a hosting company who
*does*
On 1-mrt-2006, at 17:22, David Barak wrote:
I think that we could spend
our time better in coming up with a different approach
to addressing hierarchy instead.
I agree.
The address space is one dimensional. This means you can encode a
single thing in it in a hierarchical manner "for free".
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:55, David Barak wrote:
--- Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I'm just one guy, one ASN, and one content/hosting
network. But I
can tell you that to switch to using shim6 instead
of BGP speaking
would be a complete overhaul of how we do things.
You are not alone i
--- Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I'm just one guy, one ASN, and one content/hosting
> network. But I
> > can tell you that to switch to using shim6 instead
> of BGP speaking
> > would be a complete overhaul of how we do things.
>
> You are not alone in fearing change.
It isn't
On 1-Mar-2006, at 11:22, David Barak wrote:
Also, the current drafts don't support middleboxes,
which a huge number of enterprises use - in fact the
drafts specifically preclude their existence, which
renders this a complete non-starter for most of my
clients.
I have not yet reviewed the las
--- Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> How about some actual technical complaints about
> shim6? The jerking
> knees become tedious to watch, after a while.
Okay, if I'm an enterprise with 6 ISPs but don't
qualify for PI space, I'll need to get PA space from
all of them, for Shim6 to wor
On Wed, Mar 01, 2006 at 10:33:51AM -0500, John Payne wrote:
>
>
> On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
>
> >Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
> >-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people
> >whose entire infrastructure consist
> There is
> talk at present of whether the protocol needs to be able to
> accommodate a site-policy middlebox function to enforce site policy
Certainly, firewalls may be the only point such policy will work
when the hosts are hidden behind them on a corporate lan
10 years of host legacy l
On 1-Mar-2006, at 10:33, John Payne wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to
people whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual
device, and
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:52 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
Shim6 also has some features which aren't possible with the swamp
-- for example, it allows *everybody* to multi-home, down to people
whose entire infrastructure consists of an individual device, and
to do so in a scaleable way.
Only if *ever
On Wed, 1 Mar 2006, Randy Bush wrote:
How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed enterprise
On 1-Mar-2006, at 02:56, Kevin Day wrote:
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from
their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto
larger ISPs, up to and inc
On Mar 1, 2006, at 12:47 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
o a small to medium multi-homed tier-n isp
A small-to-medium, multi-homed, tier-n ISP can get PI space from
their RIR, and don't need to worry about shim6 at all. Ditto larger
ISPs, up to and including the largest.
If you include "Web
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:06, Christian Kuhtz wrote:
However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.
Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by
this thing called Moore's law.
I don't know that anybody can tell how bad it might be. It'd be a
shame if it turned
On 1-Mar-2006, at 01:09, Randy Bush wrote:
How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed enterp
> How about some actual technical complaints about shim6?
good question. to give such discussion a base, could you
point us to the documents which describe how to deploy it in
the two most common situation operators see
o a large multi-homed enterprise customer
o a small to medium multi-home
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
telling us to
"sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that ther
On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
telling us to
"sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too
few operators involved in designi
On 2/28/06 5:21 PM, "Iljitsch van Beijnum" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:
>
>>> Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
>>> too much about this one.
>
>> Where does the assumption that the network operators control the
>> D
On Feb 28, 2006, at 4:21 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't
worry too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the
DNS for the end hosts come f
On Feb 28, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
On 28-feb-2006, at 17:09, Kevin Day wrote:
4) Being able to do 1-3 in realtime, in one place, without waiting
for DNS caching or connections to expire
How fast is real time?
And are we just talking about changing preferences here,
--On February 28, 2006 5:15:37 PM -0500 John Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
On Feb 28, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators contr
On 28-feb-2006, at 23:15, John Payne wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the
DNS for the end hosts come from?
...or in another way. Don't worry too much about this
On Feb 28, 2006, at 2:22 PM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
Should be doable with a DNS SRV record like mechanism. Don't worry
too much about this one.
Where does the assumption that the network operators control the DNS
for the end hosts come from?
On 28-feb-2006, at 17:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Well, you can't do anything with shim6 because it doesn't exist yet.
That's the good part: if you speak up now, you ca
On 28-feb-2006, at 16:34, Todd Vierling wrote:
A B Y
C C C D Y
All else being equal, X will choose the path over A to reach Y.
There's plenty of route mangler technologies out there that provide
overriding BGP information to borders that trumps path length.
"All else"
is often not as
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:52, Kevin Day wrote:
I'm not saying shim6 is flawed beyond anyone being able to use it.
I can see many scenarios where it would work great. However, I'm
really wary of it becoming the de facto standard for how *everyone*
multihomes if they're under a certain size. I'
On Feb 28, 2006, at 10:28 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Just to be clear, are you speaking from the perspective of an
acce
--- Joe Abley <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>
> On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote:
>
> > Some problems/issues that are solved by current
> IPv4 TE practices
> > that we are currently using, that we can't do
> easily in Shim6:
>
> Just to be clear, are you speaking from the
> perspe
On 28-Feb-2006, at 11:09, Kevin Day wrote:
Some problems/issues that are solved by current IPv4 TE practices
that we are currently using, that we can't do easily in Shim6:
Just to be clear, are you speaking from the perspective of an access
provider, or of an enterprise?
Joe
On Feb 28, 2006, at 6:31 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
[Crossposted to shim6 and NANOG lists, please don't make me regret
this... Replies are probably best sent to just one list for people
who don't subscribe to both.]
On 27-feb-2006, at 22:13, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote
On Tue, 28 Feb 2006, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
>A --- B
> / \
> X Y
> \ /
>C --- D
>
> C's link to D may be low capacity or expensive, so D would prefer it if X
> would send traffic to Y over another route if possible. C can make this happen
> in BGP by pre
[Crossposted to shim6 and NANOG lists, please don't make me regret
this... Replies are probably best sent to just one list for people
who don't subscribe to both.]
On 27-feb-2006, at 22:13, Jason Schiller ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Is it the consensus of the shim6 working group that the fu
I was hoping to have all of this streamed to my computer, but so far, there
are no archived streams... Aren't there any archived streams anymore, or does
it take some more time for them to appear?
The latter. We're processing the streams now, and they should be available
next week.
On 26-okt-2005, at 19:36, David Meyer wrote:
Thanks. I'd also like to thank Geoff, Jason, Vijay, Ted,
and everyone to participated in the BOF. I found the
session to be quite productive, and I hope that it will
form the foundation for an ongoing dialog.
I was h
John,
On Thu, Oct 27, 2005 at 02:08:50AM +1000, Geoff Huston wrote:
> > From: John Payne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Subject: shim6 @ NANOG
> > Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:11:45 -0400
>
>
> Public thanks to Dave, Geoff, Vijay, Ted and Jason for their
>
101 - 163 of 163 matches
Mail list logo
