APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

[Jeroen Massar]

Iljitsch van Beijnum wrote:
> On 29 nov 2007, at 15:41, Jeroen Massar wrote:

Well, I did wrote the level above it and do agree with the part below,
the below part is from Michael Horn, thus please fixup your quoter ;)

>>> 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.
> 
> Note that that's not what APNIC is doing, although if people don't pay
> attention this could easily be what ends up happening. Multilateral
> peering means that a route server exchanges everything between everyone.
> The members shouldn't be doing the same thing.

Next to that they are also suggesting people do *TRANSIT* over the link.

For instance the website still reads at:
http://icons.apnic.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3432&Itemid=94

"The  preference for the IPv6 exchange is that is an MLPA style service.
That is, we will re-advertise all routes presented to us. And the more
routes you are willing to advertise the better! As such, any
organisations willing to offer FULL TRANSIT will be greatly appreciated."

Notice the part that I put in caps. Note also that it is called the
"V6TE - Ipv6 Transit Exchange"...

>> 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.
> 
> Good point. Some kind of multipoint tunnel, such as 6to4, would be more
> appropriate here.

It definitely would, except that there is one problem with 6to4 which
makes it useless for this case, as one can't do:

ip ro add 2001:db8::/32 via 2002:c000:022a::1

Though effectively that is setting up a static tunnel from your site to
the remote site.

> That way, traffic from Japan to Thailand doesn't have
> to go through Australia. We probably have some kind of arcane IPv6
> tunneling technique that is appropriate for this...Î

Yes, point-to-point tunnels between every site with BGP on top of that.
Which is what is what the 6bone used to be (amongst others). With again
the biggest disadvantage: you don't know what the quality of the route
is that you get over such tunnels.

I agree, something is better than nothing, but not on the grand scale.
Setting up a tunnel to a (commercial) transit provider, whose job it is
to keep IPv6 connectivity working is a much much much better path.

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: <https://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/attachments/20071129/2f9f9751/attachment.sig>