abilene -> he.net routing humor

[Iljitsch van Beijnum]

On 5-jun-2005, at 21:25, James wrote:

>> Maybe we need some peering over 1 or 2 hop tunnels in places where
>> native peering can't be done for some reason.

> With all due respect, let me correct you.

> It is not the peering that you need.  It is _transit_, _transit_,  
> _transit,
> and again, transit that you need.

Well, _I_ have transit.  :-)  (Twice in fact, although it doesn't  
allow me to multihome, being an end-user.)

> There are too many people in IPv6 today who have near-zero  
> experience operating a real backbone in IPv4 that they think  
> peering is all that need to run teir v6 network.  But no, they  
> really need an upstream transit provider to make their routing  
> sane.  Ask your upstreams to support IPv6 or ask around for a free  
> upstream v6 service whether delivered over tunnel or native.

Free upstream is not worth the trouble. Either you don't really use  
it, or you do, and it won't be there for long, or not be free for long.

> Tunnel does degrade the quality of v6 as we all know,

I'll take a direct tunneled route over an indirect native one any  
day. What really kills us are _indirect_ tunnels, because the routing  
protocols don't see how bad they are.

If tunnels are the fastest way to move IPv6 packets, why not use them?

> It is the lack of experience by people
> thinking their network is Tier1 by throwing tunnels all around and  
> full
> swapping full routes over them.

:-)

I'm sure this happens, but in and of itself this is not all that  
harmful. The problem is that others who should know better don't  
filter out this "free transit".