APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

[Jeroen Massar]

Michael Horn wrote:
> Joe, Jeroen, List,
> 
> On Thu, 29 Nov 2007, Joe Abley wrote:
> 
>> On 29-Nov-2007, at 03:21, Jeroen Massar wrote:
>>
>>> This looks a bit like APNIC is going back to the 6bone days.
>>> Odd, I always got the impression that IPv6 was doing fine in that
>>> area.... clearly I was wrong and Europe is definitely in the lead.
>>> I am also really wondering how several IPv6 transits, and in this case
>>> especially the good folks from NTT are liking this.
>>
>> It has been my experience that when you phrase things in an AF-neutral
>> way in conversations with operators in Australia and New Zealand it
>> mainly leads to bitter, cynical laughter, "yeah, like *we* have any
>> IPv6 down here". In that context, the ability to plumb tunnels to
>> Brisbane rather than California probably represents a win.
> 
> I guess Jeroens point was not the tunneling (which is ok, if there is no
> other decent way to achieve v6 connectivity and the topology the tunnel is
> built uppon is reliable and of short distance) but opposes to the idea
> of the exchange of full routing tables between peers. full table swaps
> would lead to problems that rather delay successful deployment of quality
> IPv6. If that is really what APNIC is planing then i am concerned.

Correct. I didn't phrase it that way, but that is indeed what I mean.

What is not a win btw is setting up tunnels which send traffic to APNIC
 and then sending the traffic back over the same physical pipe, but
different tunnel. Providers should work this out themselves. Helping
them out though is of course a great thing. As such, having a clear list
of providers who can offer connectivity and promoting ISP's to use this
list is much more helpful than having a transit-tunnel-broker, ala 6bone
times.

The big point is that various transit providers (and last time I checked
a RIR is not in that business also) already provide the ability to
tunnel to them and setup transit in that way.

The big problem with New Zealand/Australia from what I understand is
simply that it is very expensive to get transit at all, both IPv4 and
IPv6. Spending money then on IPv6 transit is a nogo. Only real way to
solve that is to first make how peering works downunder completely
different, in a way that the local ISP's exchange traffic 'freely' and
the second step would have some big fat pipes to the rest of the world
and lowering transit costs. Costly indeed ;(

But, I am looking from the other side of the planet where we have rather
great connectivity thus I might be quite biased and also totally unaware
of whatever other factors are in play down under :(

Greets,
 Jeroen

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20071129/4a3e52f6/signature.bin