[ppml] 2005-1 status
To translate this, it will be at least 2010 before a substantial
numbers of Windows hosts support
shim6 with an aggressive schedule of pushing the protocol.
vista in 2007. Daniel is correct; nothing but a serious bug can be
changed in Vista now.
next WOS is, by recent history, at least 2 years later, say 2009
it takes order several years for a new OS to achieve substantial
The timing of a Mac OS X upgrade depends both on when it gets into
Free BSD and how
much political capital IPv6 has with Apple.
I really don't think SHIM6 should impact 2005-1 one way or the other.
As I said, when it's out there,
we can revisit this.
On Jan 24, 2006, at 4:18 PM, Daniel Golding wrote:
> On 1/24/06 3:29 PM, "Scott Leibrand" <sleibrand at internap.com> wrote:
>> I would agree that IPv6 PI space should be made available to
>> anyone who
>> qualifies for IPv4 PI space. 2005-1 as presented at L.A. was a
>> bit more
>> restrictive than that, with the 100,000 device requirement.
>> No, I don't think there is any working shim6 code. However, as
>> I've tried
>> to say before, I think shim6 will provide a multihoming solution
>> to those
>> who've thus far not had one available. IMO such a solution, if
>> implemented, would likely be better for small sites than trying to
> There is also a time-frame issue that makes shim6 unworkable as an
> IPv6 multihoming scheme. The top desktop OS is MS Windows. The next
> of Windows, Vista, is coming out sometime next year, presumably. It is
> feature-complete - shim6 wouldn't be added, even if everyone agreed
> shim6 is
> a neat trick, which there is not agreement on. The timeframe for
> deployment of shim6 capable code is (reasonably) past the date
> (choose one)
> for IPv4 RIR depletion.
> What does this mean? Any multihoming strategy must not require a
> host OS
> code change (router code changes are easier). That suggestions (for
> the time
> being) IPv6 PI with BGP.
> Shim6 is an interesting future, but if IPv6 is to succeed, we must
> have this
> functionality now. It seems that some folks in the IETF believe that
> enterprises and carriers can be strong-armed by IPv4 address
> exhaustion into
> implementing shim6 or some other suboptimal solution. This
> assumption needs
> to be questioned rather seriously.
> Daniel Golding