APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

[bmanning at vacation.karoshi.com]

On Tue, Dec 04, 2007 at 12:00:59PM +0100, Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> Bernhard Schmidt wrote:
> 
> >And, of course, due to the fullswap nature of v6TE I'm very much afraid 
> >of something like
> >
> >2001:208::/32    286 1273 6830 6830 6830 6830 6939 6939 6939 6939 2516 
> >7660 22388 11537 7610 i
> >2001:410::/32    286 1273 6830 6830 6830 6830 6939 6939 6939 6939 2516 
> >7660 22388 11537 6509 {271,2884,7860,8111,15296,26677} i
> >        8767 3549 6175 17715 6435 278 18592 27750 6509 
> >{271,2884,7860,8111,15296,26677} i
> 
> As expected (just a random pick from GRH):
> 
> 2001:1410::/32		25484 41692 30071 38610 1221 4777 2497 3257 5430 
> 25538 i
> 
> Germany-Italy-US-APNIC-IX (Japan?)-Australia-APNIC(again?)-Japan-US-Germany
> 
> Congrats for breaking IPv6 once more.
> 
> Regards,
> Bernhard

	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.

	and now the two points of interest:

	) mapping an ASN to a specific economy is often a false reading.
	  for a higher confidence metric, it would be useful to see the
	  latency btwn each of the these hops in the AS path.

	) 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?  

	just a couple of observations

--bill