Fwd: APNIC IPv6 transit exchange

[Bernhard Schmidt]

Michael Horn wrote:

>> If done correctly, they would get decent upstream (say NTT) and 
>> provide free downstream tunnels to their members. Still not the 
>> brightest idea in the long run, as the only way to create a business 
>> case for carriers is demand from their downstreams for (native) 
>> connectivity, but at least it would not fuck up global routing again.
> 
> One could even opt for the brighter ideas.
> As Iljitsch already vaguely indicated:
> How about setting up a public 6to4 and a public teredo relay?
> That would - from a user perspective to ipv6 - be the best way to
> improve ipv6 experience.

Teredo relays are chosen by the "native side" of the IPv6 conversation, 
so it is more important to have them on the server side for most use 
cases. Also, like 6to4, the relays themselves need to have good IPv6 
connectivity (the absence of which was the root cause for this idea), 
otherwise they do more harm than good. Especially when in light of 
things like this exchange available paths won't give you any clue about 
performance.

Things like

New Zealand - APNIC IX (Japan?) - South Korea (because a full-table 
leaker happens to sit there) - US West Coast

will be worse than the 160ms New Zealand - US West Coast (Sprint) Andrew 
mentioned in this thread.

Yes, if APNIC IX was operated in a sane way they might be a good place 
to run such relays _if_ their paths to the rest of the world were good. 
If their fulltable consists of their members fulltables imported from 
god-knows-where it will be even worse than now.

Bernhard