:: > We also like that fact that we can change our :: > announcements so others can only use prefix X through transit provider Y :: > and not transit provider Z, unless transit provider Y goes away (those 2 :: > are obviously not the only uses of such policies, but are just examples). :: :: :: This also seems like it achievable via DNS hacks on your side. Again, :: this seems like it can be done locally. Wonderful.. so now we have to do routing in DNS, a protocol that's not exactly designed for rapid convergence (yes, neither is BGP, but it's a *lot* faster then DNS). Just brilliant. :: While I realize that the status quo is always the most comfortable, you :: should also recognize that the status quo is simply not sustainable from :: an architectural viewpoint. Thus, the charter of multi6/shim6 is to :: change the model into one that is sustainable, and the fact that certain :: features and functionality will be lost is an unfortunate necessity. While the status quo is not sustainable if growth continues for 4+ years, deciding to "fix" the problem by pretending that there was never a good reason for it in the first place, and moving it to a different place is not a very good architectural solution either. :: Well, I cannot disagree with you. However, this is the direction that :: the IETF has chosen after careful and lengthy discussions. Those of us :: who had alternative ideas have long since lost the battle and are :: resigned to the inevitable, of which shim6 seems like the best of a bad :: lot. And I hope this thread points out why more content isn't v6 enabled.. And no, I'm not saying that "the evil greedy bastards" did this on purpose, unfortunately, it's simply yet another example of things being created without operator involvement (and yes, we, the operators, are at fault for that). See you on shim6@. -igor