<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><div style="text-align:left;direction:ltr"><span style>No one of them is localy connected lol</span></div><br><span style>Envoyé de mon iPhone</span></div>
<div style><br>Le 10 mai 2013 à 14:04, Jeroen Massar <<a href="mailto:jeroen@massar.ch">jeroen@massar.ch</a>> a écrit :<br><br></div><blockquote type="cite" style><div><span>[reply-ing to several mails in one go to limit my amount of spam ;) ]</span><br>
<span></span><br><span>On 2013-05-10 12:02 , Tayeb Meftah wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>Algeria</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>There are 5 prefixes in Algeria:</span><br><span></span><br><span><a href="http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=dz">http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=dz</a></span><br>
<span></span><br><span>Two have 94%[1] connectivity thus should be pretty well reachable, the</span><br><span>other three are not seen at all. It does mean that the two have proper</span><br><span>IPv6 transit going out of the country.</span><br>
<span></span><br><span>You might want to poke any of them, and of course your IPv4 ISP and see</span><br><span>how they can get you connected too.</span><br><span></span><br><span>2001:4340::/32 (AARN) uses DANTE as transit, they are academic.</span><br>
<span>2c0f:fe50::/32 (ANWARNET) uses a mix of <a href="http://HE.net">HE.net</a> (likely a tunnel) and</span><br><span>Level(3), which shows you can really get out of the country pretty well.</span><br><span></span><br><span>[1] could just mean that a few of the GRH peers are not properly connected.</span><br>
<span></span><br><span></span><br><span>On 2013-05-10 12:20 , Max Tulyev wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>On 10.05.13 12:58, Jeroen Massar wrote:</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite">
<span>If you want to help ISPs get connectivity, get them on this list,</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>and I am sure there are a couple of ISPs here who are more than</span><br>
</blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><blockquote type="cite"><span>happy to get them connected.</span><br></blockquote></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<span>We have serveral(!) customers connected via tunneled BGP from Poland,</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>which is EU, as well as Slovenia and Portugal.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Those "customers" are they paying customers or just "free"? Also do they</span><br>
<span>use it maybe as a backup to something? Or are they just end-sites that</span><br><span>do not want to pay for a bit of transit?</span><br><span></span><br><span>None of those three countries have any need to use tunneling, as there</span><br>
<span>is lots of native IPv6 present:</span><br><span></span><br><span> <a href="http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=pl">http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=pl</a></span><br><span> <a href="http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=sk">http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=sk</a></span><br>
<span> <a href="http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=pt">http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=pt</a></span><br><span></span><br><span>I would start nicely pointing them at the BGP tables for the ISPs</span><br>
<span>present in those list as a good help to where they can get native IPv6.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>There are also Cambogia, Russia, Ukraine...</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>I assume you mean Cambodia, it makes a bit of sense that they would have</span><br>
<span>a hard time getting native IPv6 but it seems quite a few are able to get</span><br><span>their bits in and out of the country:</span><br><span></span><br><span><a href="http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=kh">http://www.sixxs.net/tools/grh/dfp/all/?country=kh</a></span><br>
<span></span><br><span>PWWC, NTT, and of course tunneled through <a href="http://HE.net">HE.net</a>; thus there is not a</span><br><span>problem either.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>We have a lot of situations that in country or even in city there is</span><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>everything fine with IPv6 native connectivity, but it is unable to</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>provide due to monopoly of some crappy ISP inside the exact buliding</span><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>or district. And that companies already have IPv6 PI and ASN...</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>To me you are describing a business case. Put a few boxes in that</span><br>
<span>building a set up your own network outbound. I am sure you will be able</span><br><span>to compete unless it is a government enforced monopoly...</span><br><span></span><br><span>Remember, you do not have to do native yet to the end-user, tunneling</span><br>
<span>that is fine. But doing transit over tunnels is just plain wrong in 2013.</span><br><span></span><br><span>On 2013-05-10 12:34 , Sander Steffann wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>One of them is Lebanon. All international connections must go through</span><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>the incumbent telco, and they don't/won't do IPv6. Annoying, insane, ></span><br></blockquote><span>but a fact of life for the ISPs in such countries. So all the ISPs</span><br>
<blockquote type="cite"><span>that do IPv6 have to do it with tunnels to HE, OCCAID etc.</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>And by doing a tunnel over IPv4 they are effectively bypassing the</span><br><span>restrictions put upon them which can put them into a rather weird</span><br>
<span>political situation. You might want to advise them differently.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Yes, they should be moving to IPv6, but if their government does not</span><br><span>allow them due to the law in place, then they should be changing the law</span><br>
<span>and fix that nonsense...</span><br><span></span><br><span>(Side-note: I like that they are defying such a silly restrictions, the</span><br><span>Internet is not a Point-To-Point system and should have diverse path)</span><br>
<span></span><br><span>On 2013-05-10 13:32 , Max Tulyev wrote:</span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>I mentioned Slovenia as we have a request for BGP-enabled tunnel from</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>Slovenia ;) So for some reasons people still want to use BGP-enabled</span><br>
</blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>tunnels in real life, even in conuntries with well implemented native</span><br></blockquote><span>IPv6.</span><br><span></span><br><span>Likely that is a cash reason, not a "we could not get native IPv6"</span><br>
<span>reason, see above for the lists of transits that are there.</span><br><span></span><br><blockquote type="cite"><span>The second reason to use 6assist instead of regular TB it is not</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<span>depend of the actual load of tunnel server. If somebody download</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><span>something huge through a tunnel broker server - the other people just</span><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">
<span>share the tiny rest of the bandwidth...</span><br></blockquote><span></span><br><span>Just like with 6to4 and Teredo relays, but easier with this as you know</span><br><span>who is sending/receiving bits, if you can't provide enough bandwidth</span><br>
<span>then tell your users that there are bandwidth restrictions and let them</span><br><span>choose a more optimal solution for their problem. It also shows why one</span><br><span>should not be tunneling.</span><br><span></span><br>
<span><a href="http://www.sixxs.net/misc/traffic/">http://www.sixxs.net/misc/traffic/</a> shows that people are able to do on</span><br><span>average 1 Gig/s of traffic, but can peak it up to 1.80 Gig/s, all those</span><br>
<span>boxes in that list have a lot more capacity left though...</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br><span>A different on this 6assist idea is that, just like the 6bone of old</span><br><span>days, it is very simple to set up standard proto-41 tunnels. There is no</span><br>
<span>need to come up with a new protocol which does multi-point (and using an</span><br><span>RIPE IX prefix for that is likely out of scope for that allocation).</span><br><span>Most router OSs can set up proto-41, just do that with an agreement</span><br>
<span>between the parties and you know where your traffic goes and you can</span><br><span>select the best path where that traffic goes.</span><br><span></span><br><span>In short: instead of providing this service, maybe better to make a</span><br>
<span>list/point where ISPs can exchange where they could get connected?</span><br><span>Although this very list and peeringdb already provide that function of</span><br><span>course...</span><br><span></span><br><span></span><br>
<span>Greets,</span><br><span> Jeroen</span><br><span></span><br></div></blockquote></body></html>