Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:40:31AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk:
Thus spake "Noel Chiappa" <jnc(_at_)mercury(_dot_)lcs(_dot_)mit(_dot_)edu>
> From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen(_at_)sprunk(_dot_)org>
> _understand_ why PI is necessary, however much they dislike and/or
fear
> it.
Most (all?) of us understand and accept that multi-homing, vendor
independence, etc are very desirable *capability* goals. However, whether
PI
is the right *particular engineering mechanism* to reach those goals
remains
questionable.
You can question it, of course. I question it as well.
However, it is the only solution available today that the operational folks
consider viable. The IETF promised something different and has yet to
deliver, so PI was passed and deployed. If the IETF does eventually
deliver something viable, the RIRs will consider deprecating PI.
Keep in mind that, for any solution that requires host changes, "deliver"
includes being implemented and on by default in Windows. The IPv6 core
protocol has only recently achieved this after a decade of waiting, and
many other pieces still aren't available (firewalls, load balancers,
consumer CPE boxes, management apps, etc). Those who propose shim6 or
similar solutions need to expect it'll take another decade after the ink is
dry for their solutions to be considered viable -- if ever.
echo. A multi-homing solution that is simple and free of host requirements
is imperitive. shim6 isn't it, sorry.
_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
Ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf