This archive is retained to ensure existing URLs remain functional. It will not contain any emails sent to this mailing list after July 1, 2024. For all messages, including those sent before and after this date, please visit the new location of the archive at https://mailman.ripe.net/archives/list/[email protected]/
[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Daniel Roesen
dr at cluenet.de
Wed Jan 18 15:20:25 CET 2006
On Mon, Jan 16, 2006 at 05:46:22PM +0100, Per Heldal wrote: > * The current policy will work just fine combined with a > production-quality shim6 implementation, complete with full support for > traffic-engineering and load-balancing from all vendors. Sorry, but please inform yourself about the technical details of shim6 first. There is no provision for traffic engineering in shim6 as we know, use and need it today. As a completely host-centric thing this ain't doable anyway, as a host has no faint clue about how the network is interconnected with others. And the idea of retrofitting such stuff into shim6 outright scares me (and many others). Let the network do it's job. > I believe that still is a few years down the road. No, it's not even on shim6' radar. shim6 is not the droid we're looking for. And we don't even need Obi-Wan to make us believe that. Regards, Daniel -- CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
- Previous message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
- Next message (by thread): [address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]