(de)peering

[bmanning () vacation karoshi com]

On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:06:49PM -0400, James wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:17:09PM -0700, David Sinn wrote:
> > So this is all well and good while some measure of V6 is tunneled, but 
> > one should be wondering what these games of chicken mean to V6 when it 
> > is native.  Given that most organizations won't meet the qualifications 
> > to be multi-homed, stunts like this will have a greater impact then 
> > this one is having today.  Doesn't exactly leave a warm fuzzy that the 
> > current direction for IPv6 services is sane....
>
> Indeed.  Unfortunately (or actually, may this is rather fortunate?) there is 
> practically no money value yet in IPv6, so we may be at least a year (or more)
> away from seeing the first major v6 depeering dispute.  But nevertheless, given
> the imperfect state of multihoming for edge sites in IPv6, such depeering war
> will be significantly more detrimental to customers who cannot justify for a
> /32 or a "special infrastructure" /48 prefix allocation from the RIRs.  Let see
> how multihoming proposals (e.g shim6, relaxed RIR allocation policy requests, 
> etc et al) turn out in the next few months.  IPv6 operators should probably
> want to pay close attention to multihoming proposals and any commercial 
> developments in v6 world in the next year or two perhaps.  If multihoming
> solutions don't really turn out well and v6 is appearing to become more
> ubiquitous, it may be a plausible idea to start opening up your route-filters
> to accept /48 prefix-lengths before the first depeering happens :)

        er... the first depeering flaps have -already- occured in IPv6
        space.  there are several (mostly EU-based) ISPs that refuse to
        peer w/ folks using 3ffe:: space and/or filter that prefix.

--bill

> James
>
> -- 
> James Jun
> Infrastructure and Technology Services
> TowardEX Technologies
> Office +1-617-459-4051 x179 | Mobile +1-978-394-2867
> james () towardex com | www.towardex.com