Canarie / 2001:410::/32 (Was: Filters) (fwd)

[JP Velders]

> Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 22:23:40 -0400
> From: James <james at towardex.com>
> Cc: ipv6-ops at lists.cluenet.de
> Subject: Re: Canarie / 2001:410::/32 (Was: Filters) (fwd)

> On Tue, May 24, 2005 at 08:25:05PM +0200, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> [ snip ]

> > I can't currently see any decent service provided by Abilene. GEANT
> > being the european REN isn't that much better.

> Now that we are talking about RENs :)  One of the GEANT routing policies[1]
> I've heard from several sources is that they will take commercial transit
> (GBLX) for European v6 destinations, but yet, take Abilene for all non-EU
> routes, i.e. US destinations.

There might be some more history to that then obvious...

> [ ... ]
> What is even more interesting is that this "take Abilene for US routes"
> "policy" is not just GEANT only, it also seems to be exercised by regional
> EU NRENs as well (i.e. SURFnet), even though such regional networks have
> direct transit from C&W or other similar commodity transit.

In the past I (being a SURFnet customer amongst others) complained to
them about the same. The reason(s) cited then were that SURFnet had
agreed to provide transit to other NREN's, and that at the time those
policies were the least worst solution. Though nowadays I agree they
should just think about doing it the right way.

Due note, that SURFnet is undergoing a transition from their current
SURFnet5 to SURFnet6 network. And like all semi-government operations
"large changes" like these are the points of which they've been
telling you for years when these and a whole bunch of those other
issues *finally* will be resolved...

> [1]: Accuracy of this statement is not guaranteed and I may be wrong.
>      So please feel free to correct as needed.

idem.

Kind regards,
JP Velders