Brian, James,
On 2009-01-25 13:29, james woodyatt wrote:
...
While SHIM6 is complicated, I would say that its main detraction as an
alternative to NAT66 is that it doesn't have a very good incremental
deployment story. It is, however, not the only way to design a shim
layer aimed at giving us multi-homing and provider independence. I
suspect there are better ways to address that problem, which would still
require updates to existing IPv6 node implementations while allowing for
a more incremental deployment than SHIM6 does.
I'd be interested to see a proof of concept that this can be done. There
was quite a lot of discussion of alternative approaches before the shim6
direction was chosen, reflected in RFC 4177, 4218 and 4219.
I am also suspicious of this. I do realize of course that we non-shim
approaches such as one sided translation, and I personally think it
warrants further exploration. Its natural that a translation based
approach will be easier to deploy than something that requires changes
in both ends (be it at routers or proxies or hosts).
Anyway, I am not sure it is very helpful to discuss details of Shim6 or
shim-based approaches. We know that they do not satisfy everyone's
needs. Otherwise we wouldn't have needed rrg etc. The question in front
of us is: do we have something else that does?
Jari
_______________________________________________
nat66 mailing list
[email protected]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/nat66
