[ppml] 2005-1 status
christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Tue Jan 24 01:49:00 EST 2006
On 1/24/06, Bill Darte <billd at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> From: Scott Leibrand
> So with that in mind, I would argue that ARIN's IPv6 PI policy should
> encourage small multihomed sites to use a non-PI multihoming model
> while preserving the ability for large multihomed sites to get PI space
> and multihome the traditional way.
> Is that a consensus position? If not, which aspect of it do you
> disagree with, and why?
> Scott, I'd say that placing a special burden on small operations, and SHIM6
> from my limited observations seems like a very 'special' burden, to allow
> them to multihome whereas their larger counterparts can avoid the same
> burden with PI...well THAT is what needs to be justified, seems to me.
I'd point out something here, that might not need pointing out
explicitly, shim6 MAY only work if both sides of the conversation
decide to use the protocol.
So, if your small office situation (dsl and cablemodem connected and
shim6 enabled) starts/tries to do shim6 with a 'content provider' site
that has PI space and doesn't know from shim6 (some content providers,
akamai, use strange kernel tweaks/os-tweaks and likely won't support
shim6 'features' early on) doesn't shim6 isn't going to provide the
multihoming and failover and TE (perhaps) it should be providing.
I'd venture to guess it'll be a whole lot less useful than even it's
proponents wish it would be, with the situation above in mind atleast
More information about the ARIN-PPML