On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, David Conrad wrote:
Joe (or anyone else), On Oct 14, 2005, at 7:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
The big gap in the multi-homing story for v6 is for end sites, since those are specifically excluded by all the RIRs' policies on PI addressing right now. Shim6 is intended to be a solution for end sites.
Since shim6 requires changes in protocol stacks on nodes, my impression has been that it isn't a _site_ multihoming solution, but rather a _node_ multihoming solution. Is my impression incorrect?
that is my read as well... I'd bet it'll be fun with uRPF strict on sites that are /multihomed/ though still staticly routed :)
Are you suggesting that something else is required for ISPs above and beyond announcing PI space with BGP, or that shim6 (once baked and real) would present a threat to ISPs?
If my impression is correct, then my feeling is that something else is required. I am somewhat skeptical that shim6 will be implemented in any near term timeframe and it will take a very long time for existing v6 stacks to be upgraded to support shim6. What I suspect will be required is real _site_ multihoming. Something that will take existing v6 customer sites and allow them to be multi-homed without modification to each and every v6 stack within the site.
you've hit a nail on it's head.