mailing list archives
Re: protocols that don't meet the need...
From: Mikael Abrahamsson <swmike () swm pp se>
Date: Thu, 16 Feb 2006 00:12:56 +0100 (CET)
On Wed, 15 Feb 2006, Daniel Roesen wrote:
It has no clue about upstream/downstream/peering, ASses etc. Those
things that actually make topology and economics. That's aside all the
other administrative nightmares associated.
Oki, let's step back a bit and look at shim6 from another angle, the
Shim6 will enable me to create my ssh session over my wired connection,
keep it there for an hour, I can then enable my wireless connection and
shim6 will announce my new address to the other end. I can then pull out
my wired connection and just be wireless, and still keep the TCP
connection up and running. This is roaming, and users want it (hell, I
So this might be one way why the people developing shim6 doesn't seem to
care about your views on the subject, because it doesn't only address the
routing problem, it addresses other things as well.
I guess I have to do a disclaimer that the above is what I understand
shim6 to be able to do, but I might be mistaken, if so, flame away.
The internet succeeded because of its end-to-end nature and freedom to
create new applications that the network people didn't need to bother
their heads with. Shim6 is the same thing, it will happen whether we want
it or not. If users find it useful, it will florish. Better to be open
than to try to stop it just because it doesn't fit into the model of
Also on the pricing issue, there is already a huge pricing difference
between units that'll do 8k LPM routes and 1M LPM routes, I imagine the
difference in 5 years will be the same between 64k LPM routes and 8M
routes, I'd rather pay the lower price if the 64k LPM route unit because
we didn't need to scale address space to every enterprise that want to
Mikael Abrahamsson email: swmike () swm pp se
Re: protocols that don't meet the need... Andrew Dul (Feb 14)