On Oct 15, 2005, at 3:29 PM, Tony Li wrote:
So the IETF identified 4 reasons to multihome. Of those 4, shim6
ignores at least 2 of them (operational policy and cost), and so
far as I can see glosses over load sharing.
If you have a solution that satisfies all requirements, you should
contribute it. Shim6 is indeed a partial solution to the stated
requirements. There was no tractable solution found to all
requirements, and to not solve any of the issues was seen as
basically fatal.
I don't have an acceptable solution... however, I am getting tired of
shim6 being pushed as *the* solution to site rehoming, when at best
it's an end node rehoming solution.
