Re: IPv6 news

["Christopher L. Morrow" <christopher.morrow () mci com>]

On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, John Payne wrote:
> On Oct 14, 2005, at 10:57 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
> > On 14-Oct-2005, at 10:13, Christopher L. Morrow wrote:
> > > > Yep, there is no multihoming, but effectively, except for the BGP
> > > > tricks
> > > > that are currently being played in IPv4 there is nothing in IPv4
> > > > either.
> > > > But one won't need to upgrade a Tier 1's hardware to support
> > > > shim6, as
> > >
> > > shim6 is:
> > > 1) not baked
> > > 2) not helpful for transit as's
> > > 3) not a reality
> >
> > Not baked is absolutely correct, and not a reality follows readily
> > from that, as viewed by an operator.
> >
> > I'm interested in (2), though. Shim6 is not intended to be a
> > solution for transit ASes. If you're an ISP, then you can get PI
> > address space and multi-home in the normal way with BGP.
>
> *IF* you're a big enough ISP.  There are (a few) ISPs with few enough
> customers that they'd have to "exaggerate" plans to get the same
> level of multihoming that they do with their legacy IPv4 allocations...

even if you are big enough you may have a particularly large sink
somewhere inside your /32 that you want to pull through particular links
but not others... that's not possible in the current scenario.

With shim6 it's even worse, the large sink gets to do the engineering for
you :) HURRAY! Cause I'm sure they understand the internals of your
network, right? :(