mailing list archives
Re: shim6 @ NANOG (forwarded note from John Payne)
From: Christian Kuhtz <kuhtzch () corp earthlink net>
Date: Wed, 1 Mar 2006 01:06:53 -0500
On Mar 1, 2006, at 1:00 AM, Joe Abley wrote:
On 28-Feb-2006, at 23:37, Daniel Golding wrote:
Unacceptable. This is the whole problem with shim6 - the IETF
telling us to
"sit back and enjoy it, because your vendors know what's best".
Actually, I think the problem with shim6 is that there are far too
few operators involved in designing it. This has evidently led to a
widespread perception of an ivory tower with a moat around it.
One man's perception is another man's reality. ;-)
If these operators dismiss it out of hand on principal, and refuse
to actually find out whether the general approach is able to solve
problems or not, then irrelevance does indeed seem inevitable.
However, the only alternative on the table is a v6 swamp.
Would that really be so bad? I keep being bonked on the head by this
thing called Moore's law.
I think until you slay the daemon of default global reachability
(which is counter to everything IP), draining the swamp is an
exercise in futility. Controlling the flooding OTOH is a creative