nanog mailing list archives
Re: Cogent & HE
From: Jeroen Massar <jeroen () unfix org>
Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2011 07:37:59 +0200
On 2011-Jun-10 02:18, Jimmy Hess wrote:
On Thu, Jun 9, 2011 at 6:49 PM, Richard A Steenbergen <ras () e-gerbil net> wrote:On Thu, Jun 09, 2011 at 06:26:01PM -0500, Jimmy Hess wrote:You seem to have missed it, so I will say again: IPv6 is not IPv4.
First you seem to have missed the point where the Internet is since the day before yesterday the combination of IPv4+IPv6. You also seemed to have missed the part where Tier1 are supposed to provide quality native multi-path connectivity globally and not peering mostly in a tunneled fashion (oh MTU what you don't reveal) with one little router stashed at an unmanned IX. Especially that tunneled part requires IPv4 to actually be able to transmit those IPv6 packets, thus without the Tier1 status in IPv4 you really cannot claim Tier1 in IPv6 in that case. Also note that prefix count says nothing, first aggregate all the prefixes properly, ignoring ASNs which use prefixes out of a PA dump, then see how many are actually left. Of course as an extra and possibly way more important metric: check how many of those prefixes you would actually like to reach (that is where you have an interest of sending packets to/from). You might indeed be able to 'complete' your routes with it, but are those routes worth it calling something a Tier1? ;) Greets, Jeroen
Current thread:
- Re: Cogent & HE, (continued)
- Re: Cogent & HE Brielle Bruns (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Brielle Bruns (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Jimmy Hess (Jun 09)
- RE: Cogent & HE Dennis Burgess (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Joel Jaeggli (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Steve Clark (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Jimmy Hess (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Jimmy Hess (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Jeroen Massar (Jun 09)
- Re: Cogent & HE Andy B. (Jun 10)
- Re: Cogent & HE Richard A Steenbergen (Jun 09)