[ppml] IPv6 flawed?
christopher.morrow at gmail.com
Thu Sep 13 21:21:26 EDT 2007
On 9/13/07, mcr at xdsinc.net <mcr at xdsinc.net> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> In IPv6, it is strictly not uncommon for a host to have multiple IP
> addresses. So, you don't renumber the hosts or use NAT. You just let
> them have an IP address from your ISP, if you have one.
> FURTHERMORE, shim6 will let you failover active connections from one
> host to another without starting a new TCP connection.
There have been more than a few talks/panels/discussions of shim6/ipv6
at previous nanog, arin, IETF meetings. The situation is far from this
simple for production enterprise networks. It's even less simple for
SHIM6 seems to fit certain niches, I'm not sure that enterprise
multi-homing nor 'provider' multihoming are them. Content provider
multihoming seems even less likely to use shim6...
> The problem is that, if you have a 1000 hosts, and they are on
> multiple subnets (perhaps at multiple locations via VPNs or leased
> lined, or ad-hoc wireless networks, or...), that you'd like to continue
> to be able to address them even when your ISP is dead, etc.
in today's world that's a NAT, VPN, multi-homed solution... tomorrow
that may not be the case, this is all to be determined. (and yes, NAT
isn't even required in the existing case, but... )
More information about the ARIN-PPML