Re: IPv6 news

[John Payne <john () sackheads org>]

On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Tony Li wrote:

> > So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome.  Of those 4, shim6  
> > ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so  
> > far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
>
>
> If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should  
> contribute it.  Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated  
> requirements.  There was no tractable solution found to all  
> requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as  
> basically fatal.

I don't have an acceptable solution... however, I am getting tired of  
shim6 being pushed as *the* solution to site rehoming, when at best  
it's an end node rehoming solution.