APNIC IPv6 transit exchange
dr at cluenet.de
Mon Dec 3 02:07:15 CET 2007
On Sun, Dec 02, 2007 at 11:39:03PM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> a) v6TE gets _decent_ commercial-grade transit (for example from one or
> more of the players Alexander mentioned)
> b) v6TE only accepts predefined prefixes from their downstreams
> (autogenerated from a routing database or by hand, I don't care, there
> should not be networks with dozens of daily changing prefixes behind
> such a service anyway). Fulltables are only accepted from upstreams.
> c) Members can choose between only getting announced to other v6TE
> members (IX mode) or to the commercial transit from a) as well, for
> example with communities. I would even prefer if the default was IX-only
> and they had to enable their prefixes to get announced upstream by
> adding a specific community.
> Everything else is bound to create a mess in the long term.
I couldn't agree more.
It took me a good part of a year to help clean up the mess that global
IPv6 routing was a few years ago by talking to dozents of networks,
educating them in literally hundreds of mails about the need for a sane
routing policy to make IPv6 usable. Wasn't fun, but necessary. Compare
IPv6 DFZ tables from mid 2004 and then end 2005 or so to see what I'm
What APNIC is planning (as far as I understand it) directly undermines
those efforts by creating just another gang bang routing hub[*],
incapable of transitting any serious amount of actual traffic, hurting
other folks who do not want to take part in this.
Please, pretty please, don't do that. We had enough of those, it took
a long time to get rid of them or at least adjust routing so they are
not a too problematic factor anymore. I'm sure there are other sane
options (like outlined by Bernhard above), equally or even better
supporting your goals.
[*] please excuse this term, but it perfectly describes what it is
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0
More information about the ipv6-ops