pTLA request for RMNET - review closes 23 April 2002

[Ben Winslow]

--=-R739dscFkgQZ7nLlxxeP
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Wed, 2002-04-10 at 09:49, Pekka Savola wrote:
> On Wed, 10 Apr 2002, Bob Fink wrote:
> > >An ISP from Italy has a tunnel and address block from VIAGENIE in Cana=
da.
> > >
> > >Is it just me or does there seem to be something really wrong here?
> >=20
> > What is wrong? Many times networks that want to get involved with=20
> > experimenting with IPv6 cannot find reasonable geographically located p=
TLAs=20
> > to support them with a prefix and a tunnel, so they go to freenet6. Par=
t of=20
> > the reason to expand the pTLA base is to minimize this problem by creat=
ing=20
> > communities of interest with a pTLA of their own so they can then serve=
=20
> > their users in a sensible geographical way.
> >=20
> > If you think there is something wrong with this, please say more.
>=20
> If I was serious about experimenting with IPv6, I sure would not go
> overseas to find someone who might be willing to slice off a part of a
> block.  However, if I was not serious, I wouldn't care if all my IPv6
> traffic to European countries crossed the Atlantic twice.
>=20
> In real use this just would *not* have been acceptable.
>=20
> I'm sure there would have been a pTLA in, perhaps not Italy but Europe
> regardless willing to give space.  Perhaps this might be something=20
> consider in the evaluation of proper (existing) pTLA behaviour.
>=20
> --=20
> Pekka Savola                 "Tell me of difficulties surmounted,
> Netcore Oy                   not those you stumble over and fall"
> Systems. Networks. Security.  -- Robert Jordan: A Crown of Swords

I wish it weren't the case, but there are still cases where you have to
accept the 'best you can get' scenario.  I do agree that as much effort
as possible should be taken to get a good peering point (it's my opinion
that latency is a huge problem on 6bone right now--one of the joys of
having an almost guarenteed 10 IPv4 routers between every IPv6 hop), a
slow peer is better than no peering at all.

The pTLA request is a little odd, but it may be a good idea.  Presuming
that there was indeed a real effort to find a good peer in Italy and
that failed, this will provide a pTLA for others to contact for tunnels
in the same geographical region.  While the connection to the rest of
6bone may be suboptimal, regional connections should be quite a bit
faster.  Consider this scenario versus 5 people in the region who had
all resorted to freenet6 tunnels trying to make use of IPv6--especially
for something where low latency was important.

Additionally, perhaps part of their intentions for becoming a pTLA are
precisely to establish better European peers.  Looking at their pTLA
request, I think they may already have started doing this.

Perhaps somebody from RMNET would like to comment?

--=20
Ben Winslow (rain@bluecherry.net) : A little inaccuracy sometimes
       System Administrator       : saves tons of explanation. --
   Bluecherry Internet Services   : H.H. Munro, "Saki" =20
    http://www.bluecherry.net/    :=20
          (573) 592-0800          :=20

--=-R739dscFkgQZ7nLlxxeP
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: For info see http://www.gnupg.org

iD8DBQA8tKzl2/SfDQAyrVERAuWzAJ98de4Gc1e+di7MKma9Vg6w14X+WQCghw1Z
2uDfUHmHhKyr1Oj+zITBL0Q=
=lQo1
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--=-R739dscFkgQZ7nLlxxeP--