[address-policy-wg] Re: Re: 200 customer requirements for IPv6

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 15:20:25 +0100, "Daniel Roesen" <dr at cluenet.de>
said:
> 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've read all proposals wrt shim6, mobile-v6 and other intiatives, and
I'm not saying any of these is a solution on its own. At the same time
there are hooks available for those with the right engineering-spirit to
do something about it. If this flies, be sure there will be somone
making something to syncronise locator-pair selection-mechanisms among
large numbers of hosts in a network. 

Did session-handling end with TCP?   Ever heard about products utilising
TCP-functionality?  Load-balancers? Firewalls? Any reason to belive that
incremental improvements and development doesn't apply to other
technologies.

However, I did say that this will take years. 

The current V6 policy needs somthing like this, it's useless without. 

The polic has to be changed if you want to use V6 just as V4 is used
today. Then the principle is simple; anybody that qualify for an
assignment in v4 that is globally routable within RIR's
prefix-filter-recommendations have to qualify for similar with v6.


> 
> No, it's not even on shim6' radar.

Not true. Potential "hooks" for traffic engineering are discussed in
current proposals.
[tech stuff really belong in the appropriate ietf-groups]

> 
> shim6 is not the droid we're looking for. And we don't even need Obi-Wan
> to make us believe that.

Agree, if you expect v6 to be immediately ready for general use.


//per
-- 
  Per Heldal
  http://heldal.eml.cc/