North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: Multi-6 [WAS: OT - Vint Cerf joins Google]
- From: Marshall Eubanks
- Date: Mon Sep 12 18:53:06 2005
On Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:41:51 -0400
John Payne <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sep 12, 2005, at 6:58 AM, Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> >> I'll be blunt. As long as that question is up in the air, none of
> >> the major content providers are going to do anything serious in the
> >> IPv6 arena.
> > Well, I have no evidence of them doing anything with IPv6 anyway, so I
> > don't know if this makes a difference.
> I have a very strong feeling that part of the lack of content providers
> on IPv6 is due to the lack of multihoming.
No, I would say it is due to the lack of an audience that can _only_ be reached
(or even _best_ be reached) using IPv6.
Once the audience is there, the content providers will follow.
> Whilst this thread is open... perhaps someone can explain to me how
> shim6 is as good as multihoming in the case of redundancy when one of
> the links is down at the time of the initial request, so before any
> shim-layer negotiation happens.
> I must be missing something, but there's a good chance that the
> requester is going to have to wait for a timeout on their SYN packets
> before failing over to another address to try. Or is the requester
> supposed to send SYNs to all addresses for a hostname and race them