nanog mailing list archives
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
From: Joe Abley <jabley () isc org>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 11:46:26 -0500
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 lastest shim6 protocol draft, but I've seem discussion around it in which people have talked about middlebox support (in the context of "do we want to leave the door open to middleboxes, or should we insist that this is all done on the host stack?").
My single biggest issue here however is the complexity: given that today's architecture can deliver relatively simple and robust multihoming to enterprises, and rerouting DOES work today for persistent sessions (albeit imperfectly), what is the benefit to be gained from doing something this hard?
The current system is complex too, and it will get more complex as the amount of state in the routing system increases. Contrary to what some might think, reading this thread, inter-domain traffic engineering is only achievable using BGP in fairly coarse terms, and the success or failure of the TE tweaks in terms of the desired outcome is often non-determinstic, depending on it does on the routing policies of others.
The current system has the advantage, of course, that its strengths and weaknesses are somewhat well-known.
As far as I can tell, the whole reason for these discussions is the insistence on the strict PA-addressing model, with no ability to advertise PA space to other providers.
The whole reason for the strict PA-addressing model is concern over whether open-slather on PI address space will result in an Internet that will scale.
Joe (Failing miserably to keep quiet. Must try harder.)
Current thread:
- Re: absense of multicast deployment, (continued)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Stephen Sprunk (Mar 03)
- Re: absense of multicast deployment Edward B. DREGER (Mar 03)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Steven M. Bellovin (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Christian Kuhtz (Mar 04)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Kurt Erik Lindqvist (Mar 05)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Per Heldal (Mar 06)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) bmanning (Mar 01)
- Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne) Joe Abley (Mar 01)
- Shim6 vs PI addressing David Barak (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Jeroen Massar (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Owen DeLong (Mar 01)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Andre Oppermann (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Roland Dobbins (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Marshall Eubanks (Mar 02)
- Re: 2005-1, good or bad? [Was: Re: Shim6 vs PI addressing] Iljitsch van Beijnum (Mar 03)