APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

Iljitsch van Beijnum iljitsch at muada.com
Tue Dec 4 19:16:07 CET 2007

On 4 dec 2007, at 7:24, bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com wrote:

> 	I can't help but think that you (and others that complain)
> 	have an odd understanding about "broken"...  For me (and
> 	I suspect many others), broken means the packets don't get
> 	there.  Connectivity, even if not what I would consider
> 	optimal paths, is better than no connectivity at all.

Strangely, that's not true for IPv6. Almost by definition, every  
destination connected to the internet is reachable over IPv4. If you  
then add reachability over IPv6 that is much worse than the  
reachability over IPv4, you're actually hurting users.

Although it's highly undesirable to have these overly long paths, I  
think it's important to point out that it takes two to tango: these  
paths wouldn't be visible in the routing tables if there were also  
short paths available. There are still people out there that have nice  
IPv6 networks at home but refuse to play with the other kids in the  
peering playground.

> 	) if there are perceived reachability problems between two
> 	  sites in Germany is it really prudent to complain to everyone
> 	  that its all the Asians fault that connectivity inside Germany
> 	  is "broken" (to borrow your term)?  Would AS 25484 and AS 25538
> 	  be willing to connect up to some neutral place like DEIX and
> 	  peer directly over native IPv6?


More information about the ipv6-ops mailing list