Kevin Loch wrote:
...
In case you (IETF) diddn't get the memo, the operational community has
flat out rejected shim6 in it's current form as a replacement
for PI.
Kevin, I realise you may have felt provoked by the tone of
some earlier messages, but I must point out that (a) the shim6
work is only at the stage of WG discussion, so "reject" is
really not relevant at this point, and (b) I know personally
of people in the operational community who, far from rejecting
it, are actively working on the specifications.
That being said, constructive technical input from the operational
community is very welcome and is always listened to. Shim6 *is*
listening to it.
This failure of leadership from the IETF to provide a roadmap for a
viable alternative to PI is a factor in the support for going with
the current technology.
First of all, "the IETF" is the set of people who choose to work
in the IETF. So if there is a failure, all of us here should look
in the mirror together to find the culprits. Second, I believe that
the failure is much deeper, at the mathematical level - we need an
alternative to the BGP4 model we've been based on for ten years,
and that is a truly hard problem.
Scott Leibrand wrote:
..
> I agree, especially in the near term. Aggregation is not required right
> now, but having the *ability* to aggregate later on is a prudent risk
> reduction strategy if today's cost to do so is minimal (as I think it is).
I think that's an understatement until we find an alternative to
BGP aggregation. That's why my challenge to Iljistsch was to simulate
10B nodes and 100M sites - if we can't converge a reasonable sized
table for that network, we *know* we have a big problem in our
future. Not a risk - a certainty.
Edward Lewis wrote:
...
>
> The debate between 1) what happens to router tables with PI prefixes, 2)
> what happens when the protocol is crimped into a comfortable-to-operate
> fashion, and 3) what customers are will to bear, has been raging for
> more than a year.
>
> It's plain to see that PI space threatens to blow up routing.
> It's plain to see that IPv6 is supposed to allow for end-to-end
> flexibility.
> It's plain to see that customers no longer want to be tied to ISPs.
With all due respect to the debates in the RIRs, these three facts were
well known when the multi6 WG was created, four years before the
shim6 proposals emerged. Also, I refer you to a recent message in a
forked part of this thread:
http://ops.ietf.org/lists/shim6/msg01288.html
in which Scott Leibrand nicely positions shim6 and PI as parts of
the overall solution space.
Brian
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf