APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

[Bernhard Schmidt]

Terry Manderson wrote:

> This is not an effort to dredge up the past, it is however a necessary 
> step to allow operators in developing regions to put their toe in the 
> IPv6 pool. Especially if those regions have carriers (monopolistic or 
> otherwise) that currently do not offer native v6 services.
> 
> In some ways, yes, Europe is well advanced in the IPv6 arena.
> 
> I'm not going to comment on what drives an IPv6 business case as I don't 
> think I'm qualified, suffice to say that of the thousands of ISPs in the 
> region I can count the number of those willing and capable to provide 
> upstream ipv6  (tunneled or otherwise) on one hand. An unfortunate state 
> really.
> When ever I go to a conference and question people about IPv6 as to 
> their development - the common and frequent response I get is "why 
> bother, I can't get v6 transit easily".

I'm not argueing that it might be hard in the APNIC region to get decent 
upstream and maybe APNIC should offer a way to get connectivity. But not 
in the way you outlined in the original mail forwarded by Jeroen. Please 
do not create another point where people feed _and_ receive fulltables, 
this is creating an unfixable mess. There is already too much unusable 
crap leaking through the APNIC reagion (see 
http://lists.cluenet.de/pipermail/ipv6-ops/2007-October/001587.html), 
please don't add another one. You are hurting global connectivity and 
thus deployment.

Instead, if you want to do this have people only advertise their own 
routes (themselves and their downstreams). Get a dedicated and decent 
IPv6 upstream (for example NTT) which offers transit to the IX members. 
Offer your members a way (for example community-based) to suppress 
announcements to this upstream (to use this APNIC IX as "real" IX). 
Offer communities that allow downstream ASNs to drop "upstream" routes.

If you want APNIC "IX" to be a transit provider for bootstrap purpose, 
fine with me.

Regards,
Bernhard