Wed, Sep 19, 2007 at 09:40:31AM -0500, Stephen Sprunk: > Thus spake "Noel Chiappa" <jnc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > > From: "Stephen Sprunk" <stephen@xxxxxxxxxx> > > > > > _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@xxxxxxxx https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf